Just a few of the factual inaccuracies are listed. Read for yourself.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_abc_obtainedFull Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC
Obtained
We've just obtained the full text of a blistering
letter that Bill Clinton's attorney, Bruce Lindsey,
has written to ABC chief Bob Iger protesting the
network's decision to air the 9/11 docudrama, "The
Path to 9/11." The letter demands that the network
pull the miniseries unless it corrects all its errors:
"The content of this drama is factually and
incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to
fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely.
It is unconscionable to mislead the American public
about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country
has ever known." The full text of the letter -- which
was first written about in today's New York Post --
after the jump.
Here's the full text of the letter:
September 1, 2006
Dear Bob,
As you know, ABC intends to air a two part miniseries,
“The Path to 9/11,” which purports to document the
events leading up to the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. ABC claims that the show is based
on the 9/11 Commission Report and, as Steve McPherson, President of ABC Entertainment, has said: “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
By ABC’s own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly
wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.
Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we
have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama’s writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, “I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn’t want them to stymie my efforts.” Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual
errors:
-- The drama leads viewers to believe that National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he
would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden.
This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
In addition, ABC’s own counter-terrorism consultant,
Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie:
1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground
in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;
2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was
nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not
see bin Laden; and
3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend
a strike on the camp because the information was
single-sourced and there would be no way to know if
bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise
missile hit it.
As Clarke and others will corroborate, President
Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use
Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden.
The CIA’s Afghan operatives were never able to carry
out the operation and the CIA recommended against
inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of
Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine
the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also
recommended against that option.
-- The drama claims that former Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile
strike against bin Laden without first alerting the
Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of
the military. Again, this is false.
-- Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the
drama insinuates that President Clinton was too
pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky
matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This
allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC
News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against
All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give
him our best national security advice without regard
to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we
strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political
advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my
problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this
was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would
order it and take the heat.”
While these are three examples that we are aware of
that are utterly baseless, they are clearly indicative
of other errors in the substance and bent of the film.
Indeed, the overall tone in the advertisements we’ve
seen for this drama suggest that President Clinton was inattentive to the threat of terrorism or insufficiently intent upon eliminating the threat from bin Laden. Note that the 9/11 Commission Report says:
-- We believe that both President Clinton and
President Bush were genuinely concerned about the
danger posed by al Qaeda.” (p. 349)
-- “By May 1998 … clearly, President Clinton’s concern
about terrorism had steadily risen.” (p. 102)
-- “President Clinton was deeply concerned about bin
Laden. He and his national security advisor, Samuel
‘Sandy’ Berger, ensured they had a special daily
pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on
bin Laden’s reported location.” (p. 175)
-- “President Clinton spoke of terrorism in numerous
public statements. In his August 5, 1996, remarks at
George Washington University, he called terrorism ‘the
enemy of our generation.’” (p. 500)
We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report
and find any basis for the false allegations noted
above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that
the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the
threat of a terrorist strike.
Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising
given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh’s bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz’s conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said:
"The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s
administration’s response – or lack of response – to
Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep
attacking American interests. The worst example is the
response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S.
Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed.
There simply was no response. Nothing."
But as Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission: “
o go
to war, a president needs to be able to say that his
senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have
concluded who is responsible.” And as the 9/11
Commission report repeatedly acknowledges, the US did
not have clear evidence of bin Laden’s connection to
the attack on the USS Cole before the end of the
Clinton Administration (p. 192, 193, 195 & executive
summary).
While ABC is promoting “The Path to 9/11” as a
dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a
fictitious rewriting of history that will be
misinterpreted by millions of Americans. Given your
stated obligation to “get it right,” we urge you to do
so by not airing this drama until the egregious
factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could
easily assist you with given the opportunity to view
the film.
Sincerely,
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(580 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
