There's Truthiness, and Then There's Flat Out Propagandist Lies

Ah, where to start with the rising furor over ABC TV's "mockudrama" The Path to 9/11? First off, let me say that just because a piece of entertainment doesn't meet with my political views, I'm not going to shout it down. But from what's been flying around the blogosphere this week, it's pretty clear that this isn't just a case of a political viewpoint that's been skewed too far to one side. And, in fact, it's looking like the filmmakers are attempting to leave the flaming bag of blame on the doorstep of one person in particular--Clinton!!!--and sidestepping any culpability that the current administration might play in all this.

Howard Kurtz in the WaPo notes:

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

He goes onto list several scenes that several former Clinton aides dispute, including this one:

· (Former national security adviser Sandy) Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."

Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.

Editor & Publisher was provided an advance review copy, and includes an extensive description of the two-part mini-series. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Clarke explains to O'Neill afterward that "they are worried about political fallout" and "legalities." O'Neill complains that terrorism is "perceived by this administration as a law and order problem." A CIA planner angrily declares, "It's not about sitting around a conference room covering your ass."

Right away comes a quick cut to Clinton making his famous statement about not having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Clarke tells O'Neill that Clinton won't give the order to get bin Laden in this climate, with Republicans calling for his impeachment. O'Neill says that Clinton wants bin Laden dead -- but not if he has to order it. "It's pathetic," he declares.

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."

[...]

But what about the famous Aug. 6, 2001 "PDB" that warned the president about bin Laden's determination to strike within the U.S.? We see Secretary Rice reading it in private and looking concerned, but we never see the president's reaction.

However, on Sept. 4, 2001, Rice tells officials that thanks to the warnings in the PDB, the president is convinced al-Qaeda is a "real threat ... the president is tired of swatting flies." She seems to advocate taking some strong action and Clarke agrees, but Tenet argues against it. So in this telling, it appears that President Bush is in the vigilant/aggressive camp, perhaps thwarted by Clinton holdover Tenet.

Now, about that Bin Laden snatch job... Richard Clarke (former Clinton/BushCo terrorism official and author of Against All Enemies) takes some issue with that from the NYTimes:

In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.

“It didn’t happen,” Mr. Clarke said. “There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.”

Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. “It’s 180 degrees from what happened,” he said. “So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.”

And while Thomas Kean, one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission is helping to flog the mockudrama (he was a consultant to the project, and has been part of the press rollout for ABC), Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste takes issue with its veracity (though he does have one positive comment):

“As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 commission’s finding the way that they had,” Mr. Ben-Veniste said. “They gave the impression that Clinton had not given the green light to an operation that had been cleared by the C.I.A. to kill bin Laden,” when, in fact, the Sept. 11 commission concluded that Mr. Clinton had.

Mr. Ben-Veniste said he did, however, approve of the casting. “I like Harvey Keitel,” he said of the actor who plays John O’Neil, the onetime F.B.I. counterterrorism expert who died in the attacks. “I liked him in ‘Mean Streets.’ I’m a fan.”

I also highly recommend downloading a longish segment with Ben-Veniste from last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann over at Crooks and Liars, where he rips ABC a new one (in his trademark calm manner).

So why is all this important? This isn't being sold just as a piece of entertainment -- it's being served up as a dramatization of true history, one that ABC hopes will linger on in the memory of its viewers (enough so that they buy the eventual DVD release, no doubt). But here's the kicker -- ABC is also pushing this dramatization as an aid to teaching high school history:

Media Matters for America has found ABC is "generously sponsor[ing]" high school teaching materials in connection with its "docu-drama" the Path to 9/11 that leave out key information, resulting in a distorted account of pre-Iraq War WMD claims, and falsely link the war in Iraq to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

[...]

Scholastic Inc., which describes itself as "the global children's publishing, education and media company," is reaching out to more than 100,000 high school teachers around the country in an effort to publicize the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9-11." Scholastic is not only urging teachers to discuss and debate the events leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, but is also providing them with multiple "resource sheets" which contain misleading information about the Iraq war.

[...]

The "Student Resource Sheet" also seems to link the war in Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: "Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, the United States began a global "War on Terror" to stop terrorist groups and state-sponsored terrorism. President Bush has led the United States into Afghanistan and Iraq and reorganized the national government in an attempt to combat terrorist activity."

However, due to the uproar, Scholastic seems to have taken the downloadable study guides off from their web site at this time (according to The All Spin Zone blog); we'll see if this sticks. But that notwithstanding, Firedoglake wraps this whole thing up quite nicely:

[S]howing something that is not true in a fictional "dramatization" that is being shilled out to schools across America as a fact-based show worthy of study, with handy study guides provided by Scholastic, and that will be broadcast with a weaselly disclaimer including the name of the 9/11 Commission as some justification for all the "fact-esque" pretend bits they’ve inserted into the mini-series – it’s called lying to the public. Period.

Indeed. And rather than give this dreck any credence, I'm going to flip the channel on Sunday evening to CBS for its rebroadcast of their 9/11 documentary by French filmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, which includes amazing and heartbreaking footage from inside the World Trade Center before its collapse. That's the way I'll always remember that horrible day, and I don't need Harvey Keitel gumming up those memories.