ABC's site says: "Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day -- to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period."
David Cunningham, the show's director said on Saturday: "This is a movie or more specifically a docudrama. Meaning, it is a narrative movie based on facts and dramatized with actors." Cyrus Nowraste, the show's writer on August 16th said: "This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson."
So that's clear right? It's based on the commission report but is a techno-thriller movie and a history lession. Just like a Tom Clancy techno-thriller history lesson. I think Sheldon Rampton makes a good point, "If the goal were simply to inform the public, however, ABC would have produced an actual documentary rather than a docudrama, which gives the producers license to distort facts whenever and however they wish, while also pretending that their work is somehow a re-enactment of reality." Then again, United 93 was a really good docudrama.
The Path to 9/11 was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh and I'm fairly certain I've never seen anything he's done. Think Progress has this page titled "Writer of ABC's 9/11 'Docudrama' Is Avowed Conservative Activist". But if you read the article they drop the word "activist" and just say he's an "unabashed conservative" which I really don't think is crime. They also point out he "conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag". Read the interview, there's nothing nutwing or even wrong with what he says. They also complain he called Michael Moore "an out of control socialist weasel" but he was just quoting that right-wing recruitment film, Team America World Police. Think Progress, If this is the best you've got against Nowrasteh just be quiet.
Actually there is one problem with the FontPageMag interview. Nowrasteh says "The worst example [of Clinton's lack of response] is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing." When the reality is that Clinton was waiting for confirmation that it actually was al Qaeda that was responsible for the attack but that didn't happen until Bush took office. And then Bush did nothing. Even the Washington Times had an op-ed saying "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. As President Bush well knows, bin Laden was and remains very good at staying hidden."
There's a lot of hype about this show already. ABC had a blog on their site, but they pulled it down and then two days later they put it back up. One can only speculate they didn't like the comments and then didn't like the criticism.
So what do we know about the show? Salon has a review of this an other 9/11 TV events. They say The Path to 9/11 spends too much on Lewinsky: "we're repeatedly treated to his most uneasy moments in the hot seat over Lewinsky, painting the president as a buffoon more interested in blow jobs than terrorists." I'm pretty certain that wasn't in the 9/11 Commission Report.
A big complaint seems to be about a scene where CIA agent Donnie Wahlberg has bin Ladin in his sights in Afghanistan in the 90s and in Washington NSA Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to take him out. Think Progress claims Richard Clarke told them that none of that ever happened, at all. The CIA wasn't in Afghanistan, did not see bin Laden, and Tenet would not have recommended such a strike. My problem is that their link for this information doesn't say that. But we also have Sandy Berger himself saying "It's a total fabrication. It did not happen." Ok, but then Tom Kean said it "representative of a series of events compacted into one". So what's true?
After our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed on August 7, 1998, we did launch cruise missiles (on Aug 20) at 8 campsites in Afghanistan, but obviously didn't hit bin Laden. Richard Clarke tried to mount a concerted effort to stop bin Laden. In August and September 1998 covert operations brought large numbers of terrorist arrests in Azerbaijan, Italy, Britain, and Germany. They tried to go after bin Laden himself but the only military option was cruise missles (there wasn't enough justification in 1998 to invade Afghanistan) and for various reasons such as civilian casualties, imprecise intelligence, diplomatic blowback, airspace approval from others nations, etc. we didn't attack. When your intelligence tells you bin Laden might be in the Governor's Residence in Kandahar tonight, do you fire a cruise missle at it?
Another complaint I've seen is that a CIA analyst complains that "ever since the Washington Post disclosed that we intercepted his calls, UBL [Usama bin Laden] stopped using phones altogether". And it turns out it was the conservative Washington Times, not the Post, that published this on August 21, 1998. But note the date, it was a day after the cruise missle strikes mentioned above. Maybe the reason bin Laden stopped using satellite phones was actual missle strikes rather than an article in an American newspaper. Bush himself cited this incident while defending the Domestic NSA Spying program on December 19, 2005, though he didn't (incorrectly) give the name of the paper. You'd think ABC's docudrama might have done enough fact checking to get the paper's name right, I just did in a few minutes of Googling. but this doesn't really strike me as evidence of huge bias in the show.
If the 568 page 9/11 Commission Report is too long for you to get through (it's only a 7.5MB download), you have another option. Last month "The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation" was published.
Yes it's in comic book form, but it's accurate, detailed and only 144 pages. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that. Its first chapter shows the events of the 4 planes in 4 parallel timelines, this works great in graphic form. In some places maps and diagrams help a great deal but in other ones it just seems like illustrations to go with the words. Nevertheless, the words are good and I learned a fair amount. There's a forward by the chair and vice-chair of the commission where they "commend the talented graphic artists of this edition for their close adherence to the findings, recommendations, spirit, and tone of the originial commission report." Somehow I'm pretty sure they are not saying the same thing about The Path to 9/11. Well of course it's not so easy. The chairman, Tom Kean, a Republican, said "'It's reasonably accurate.' And he offered a prediction that the show will 'get just as many howls from Republicans.'". As a result of this Jennifer Nix (whoever she is) has some questions for ABC and Tom Kean and all the left-wing blogs are linking to them.
Oh and a little more on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. Let's remember it has some accuracy problems and Moore himself called it " an op-ed piece". Also remember that Disney refused to let subsidiary Miramax distribute the film and note that Disney owns ABC. Fahrenheit 9/11 of course went on to become the highest grossing documentary of all time. But it wasn't up for a Best Documentary Oscar because Moore instead wanted it shown on TV before the election in order to influence voters. I don't think the left was up in arms about that.
As is so often the case, the answer on The Path to 9/11 is probably wait and see or watch it yourself and make your own decision. My guess is there will be a bias to the right, but if you only go as far as 9/11 there isn't a lot to blame Bush for. Now if they showed the dismal report card the 9/11 Commission gave the administration in December 2005 for following their recommendations, that's another story.
I can recommend Frontline's The Dark Side, now if I could only finish my review of it...
No comments:
Post a Comment