9/11 "documentary" fakes scenes to make Clinton look bad

[Thorgrim]

Analysis: Sept. 11 miniseries under fire
By SHAUN WATERMAN
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.

"The Path to 9/11," a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, will be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack next week by ABC Television.

The movie is billed as a dramatization based on the report of the U.S. commission that investigated the events of Sept. 11 and circumstances leading up to it. According to a disclaimer shown at the beginning of each episode, it "has composite and representative characters and incidents, and time compressions have been used for dramatic purposes."

But a portion of the film showing an aborted effort to capture al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden before the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has aroused the ire of some of the officials portrayed.

A statement from Samuel "Sandy" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time, calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."

And Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., called on ABC to show disclaimers throughout each episode, not just at the beginning. "ABC has a responsibility to make clear that this film is not a documentary, and does not represent an official account of the facts surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks," she said.

In one scene, CIA operatives working with Ahmed Shah Masud, the charismatic Afghan mujahedin leader who fought al-Qaida and their Taliban sponsors, are assembled on a hillside above bin Laden's residence at Tarnak Farms. "It's perfect for us," says "Kirk," a composite character representing several of the CIA operatives and analysts involved in the hunt for the terrorist leader.

But the team is forced to abort the mission when Berger hangs up on them in the middle of a conference call, after telling them he cannot give the go ahead for the action.

"I don't have that authority," he says.

"Are there any men in Washington," Masud asks Kirk afterwards in the film, "or are they all cowards?"

"The incidents depicted did not happen," said Berger in the statement. "They are not contained in the Sept. 11 Commission report, which is the most authoritative review of the events before and after the attack."

Indeed, the commission's report -- although it reveals the Clinton White House was concerned about the possible repercussions of a failed capture effort -- says that it was CIA Director George Tenet who nixed the capture plan, which would never have involved U.S. personnel in the assault, and which was canceled before being put into operation.

Officials from both the White House and the CIA have characterized the back-and-forth about the plan as a breakdown of communications. The White House believed that they were authorizing the killing of bin Laden, but those at the CIA charged with carrying out the operation itself saw their authority limited to a capture operation that might result in his death.

"There were shouting matches" between senior officials about the plan, said one senior member of the Sept. 11 commission staff who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is now working in a sensitive government position. However, the staffer said, the scene at Tarnak Farms "didn't happen, and frankly it's silly."

But former GOP Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government.

"If you portray that accurately," he added, "people from both (the Clinton and Bush) administrations will complain."

"I would say it's balanced," Kean said.

The film does paint a rather unflattering portrait of the incoming Bush administration -- showing how they demoted White House counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, and failed to act against al-Qaida even after their responsibility for the November 2000 attack on the USS Cole became clear.

"The difference is, the stuff they show the Bush administration doing actually happened," said Jay Carson, a spokesman for former President Clinton.


United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Analysis: Sept. 11 miniseries under fire

If you look at the people who wrote the story, they all have ties to the right wing machine, and Rush Limbaugh got a copy while other centrist or left wing media outlets did not

It's all a ploy to try and build up Bush and beat up on Democrats before the election using lies and propaganda

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's all a ploy to try and build up Bush and beat up on Democrats before the election using lies and propaganda

this unprecedented use of freedom of speech must be stopped!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

this unprecedented use of freedom of speech must be stopped!

freedom of speech != slander

[thomez]

damn liberal media at it again

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

freedom of speech != slander

404 slander not found. "Composite and representative characters" can be called upon there: that segment (while false) stands in for the weeks of bickering and other bullshit that passed between the White House & CIA which ultimately aborted the mission.

It's free speech; love it in all forms, not just the ones that you like.

[thomez]

why wouldn't they just represent it factually if that was the aim of the rest of the entire film?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Phantom

this unprecedented use of freedom of speech must be stopped!

Yeah, I know. That's so stupid that people would bitch about propaganda ... especially when it's coming from the same guy that advocated "An Inconvenient Truth" as being an excellent documentary before ever seeing it, and knowing full well that it was full of bias. Look, dude, if you're going to be accepting of things that have a bias that are in agreement with you, then you're not really at liberty to complain about it when something has a bias that disagrees with you.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by thomez

why wouldn't they just represent it factually if that was the aim of the rest of the entire film?

I bet the rest of the film is chock full of other things like this, Thorgrim (and this article) is just cherry picking. I've read the 9/11 report, if they put that on TV event for event it would be pretty damn boring... ABC cares most about ratings, even in "factual" shows.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yeah, I know. That's so stupid that people would bitch about propaganda ... especially when it's coming from the same guy that advocated "An Inconvenient Truth" as being an excellent documentary before ever seeing it, and knowing full well that it was full of bias. Look, dude, if you're going to be accepting of things that have a bias that are in agreement with you, then you're not really at liberty to complain about it when something has a bias that disagrees with you.

#1 an IC didn't have a scene of bush in the WH taking a shit on the constitution, that would inaccurate and a lie

#2 IC was a great documentary

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Look, dude, if you're going to be accepting of things that have a bias that are in agreement with you, then you're not really at liberty to complain about it when something has a bias that disagrees with you.

bias is not a complete misrepresentation of fact when claiming to do so

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

404 slander not found. "Composite and representative characters" can be called upon there: that segment (while false) stands in for the weeks of bickering and other bullshit that passed between the White House & CIA which ultimately aborted the mission.

It's free speech; love it in all forms, not just the ones that you like.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), slander


SLANDER

slander, n. 1. A defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, esp. speech. • Damages for slander -- unlike those for libel -- are not presumed and thus must be proved by the plaintiff (unless the defamation is slander per se). [Cases: Libel and Slander 1, 24. C.J.S. Libel and Slander; Injurious Falsehood §§ 2, 5-6, 10, 47.] 2. The act of making such a statement. See

^^ ABC is posting a scene that a REASONABLE PERSON would assume is true about Berger, and thus lowering their opinion of him, even though the scene they are showing is FALSE

ABC is liable and Berger is likely to sue because he has cause of action

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), slander


SLANDER

slander, n. 1. A defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, esp. speech. • Damages for slander -- unlike those for libel -- are not presumed and thus must be proved by the plaintiff (unless the defamation is slander per se). [Cases: Libel and Slander 1, 24. C.J.S. Libel and Slander; Injurious Falsehood §§ 2, 5-6, 10, 47.] 2. The act of making such a statement. See

^^ ABC is posting a scene that a REASONABLE PERSON would assume is true about Berger, and thus lowering their opinion of him, even though the scene they are showing is FALSE

ABC is liable and Berger is likely to sue because he has cause of action

there is a much higher burden to make a prima facie case of slander against a public official...

[Publius]

If he does, we'll see how the Courts rule.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

there is a much higher burden to make a prima facie case of slander against a public official...

yes, but its so clear cut

They are making out a scene that is labeled as fact, refused to give a transcript to the parties slandered before it aired (while giving them to rush limbaugh) and the scene is 100% FALSE, people will think of Berger as the one who shut down the operation when it was Tenet, and all of this is unclassified information so they have no excuse to lie except they slandered someone for ratings

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

If he does, we'll see how the Courts rule.

and if they rule in his favor?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

yes, but its so clear cut

They are making out a scene that is labeled as fact, refused to give a transcript to the parties slandered before it aired (while giving them to rush limbaugh) and the scene is 100% FALSE, people will think of Berger as the one who shut down the operation when it was Tenet, and all of this is unclassified information so they have no excuse to lie except they slandered someone for ratings

care to make a wager?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

and if they rule in his favor?

it won't change the fact that it's free speech to represent something factual in a compressed, non-factual manner. All it will mean is that they were dumb enough not to have the proper legalese warnings plastered on their product.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

care to make a wager?

he might not file at all

if it goes to court ill make a paypal wager then

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

he might not file at all

if it goes to court ill make a paypal wager then

he won't file at all because he has no case, I can't win