[Updated 3:04pm] Okay, I'm back, if slightly under the weather, and it doesn't take long for me to find another example of something stupid that cheeses me off.
Whether it's due to George W. Bush's sinking poll numbers or just the need for the Republican spin machine to scare the masses away from voting for Democrats in November, ABC is preparing to air a "docudrama" on the 9/11 attacks that shamelessly flaunts its bias:
On September 10 and 11, ABC will air a "docudrama" called "The Path to 9/11." It was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who describes himself as "more of a libertarian than a strict conservative," and is giving interviews to hard-right sites like FrontPageMag to promote the film.
What will it say about President Clinton? Here's Rush Limbaugh with a preview:
A friend of mine [Cyrus Nowrasteh] out in California has produced and filmed -- I think it's a two-part mini-series on 9/11 that ABC is going to run in prime-time over two nights, close to or on 9/11. It's sort of surprising that ABC's picked it up, to me. I've had a lot of people tell me about it, my friends told me about it... And from what I have been told, the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration in doing anything about militant Islamofascism or terrorism during its administration. It cites failures of Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright and Sandy Burglar.
I dunno about you, but if Rush Limbaugh gives it his seal of approval, that's a warning sign for me to stay far away. It certainly doesn't help the "docudrama" (read: propaganda) look unbiased when ABC provides conservative bloggers -- and only conservative bloggers -- exclusive previews to the show.
And it definitely doesn't do ABC any good when their own counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke (yes, that Richard Clarke) is already denouncing prominent errors lies in the "docudrama" bullshit:
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.
Yet, despite the errors and bias, ABC is pulling out all the stops to make sure everyone gets to see "The Path to 9/11":
After originally announcing its intention to air "The Path to 9/11" with limited commercial interruption, the network now will air both parts of the $30 million Harvey Keitel starrer without any advertising.
What's more, the Alphabet will potentially limit its backend profits by allowing consumers to download the complete miniseries -- for free -- via Apple's iTunes Music Store. Mini also will be streamed for free via ABC.com, and XM Radio has pacted with the network to make an audiocast of the film available to its subscribers.
...McPherson said by offering the show for free on iTunes and via streaming video on ABC.com, the net hoped to expose as many people as possible to the findings of the 9/11 Commission, whose report forms the basis of the mini's script.
Damn you, liberal media!
[Updated 2:00pm] According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Path to 9/11" is already getting bounced by a member of the Presidential 9/11 Commission. Regarding a scene in the movie depicting Clinton Security Advisor Sandy Berger freezing incomprehensibly when asked whether the CIA should assassinate Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, Commisioner Richard Ben-Veniste said, "There was no incident like that in the film... I am disturbed by that aspect of it." Mr. Berger, contacted separately, shared the same thoughts. "It's a total fabrication. It did not happen."
Gosh, a right-wing hatchet job "docudrama" that creates libelous scenes out of whole cloth. What a surprise.
[Updated 3:04pm] Jennifer Nix has a nifty set of questions for ABC over "The Path to 9/11", such as:
– Why, if this is a non-partisan project, is only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission being asked to front this project?
– Why were many of the principals of this film, like Richard Clarke, not shown relevant scenes from the movie early on, so that research and scenes could be vetted -- and corrected, if misrepresented?
– If you were truly intending to provide a non-partisan public service to the American public, why not produce and air a true documentary actually based on the 9/11 Commission Report and vetted by both Democrats and Republicans?
– Will you consider pulling scenes proven to be false?
Recent comments
4 days 18 hours ago
6 days 8 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago
1 week 4 days ago