Posted on 09/10/2006 9:36:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NEW YORK - ABC aired its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" on Sunday but made editing changes after former Clinton administration officials complained it contained fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks.
ABC's editing of the five-hour movie, airing on two successive nights starting Sunday, was evident from the very beginning. Twice, the network de-emphasized the role of the 9/11 commission's final report as source material for the film.
The version that aired Sunday also changed a scene that, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have affected an effort to go after Osama bin Laden.
In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.
But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."
O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."
The critics' version contained a note in the opening scenes that the film is "based on the 9/11 commission report." That was omitted from the film aired Sunday. A disclaimer aired three times emphasized it was not a documentary.
"For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression," the note that ran before the movie said.
The note said the material is "drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews." That differs from a note in the critics' version that said the dramatization "is based on the 9/11 commission report and other published sources and personal interviews."
Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie.
A scene in the movie depicting a team of CIA operatives poised in darkness outside of bin Laden's fortess in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially cut down from the original. Pictures of the waiting Afghanistan operatives are interspersed with those of officials in Washington, who had to approve the mission.
The original version depicted national security adviser Samuel R. Berger hanging up on CIA chief George Tenet as Tenet sought permission to attack bin Laden. The movie aired Sunday did not include Berger hanging up.
The affect of the changes is to deflect specific blame. It ends with actor Donnie Wahlberg, head of the CIA team in Afghanistan, saying, "Are there no men in Washington?"
Another scene in the critics' cut pictured O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"
Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."
This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.
Editors left intact a scene that had angered former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, portraying her as being behind a move to inform the Pakistani government in advance of a U.S. missile strike against bin Laden. The movie indicated that was a key factor in bin Laden getting away.
The movie, scheduled to air from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., finished at 10:40 p.m. ET.
ABC has said little about the controversy, and said Sunday it would not comment.
Thomas Kean, head of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks and a backer of the film, said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday that he hadn't seen the final cut of the movie but urged Americans to watch it.
"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor. "That's wrong and it shouldn't happen."
John Lehman, another Republican commission members, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush.
"And if you don't like the hits to the Clinton administration, well, welcome to the club," Lehman said. "The Republicans have lived with Michael Moore and Oliver Stone and most of Hollywood as a fact of life."
___
AP Television Writer Frazier Moore contributed to this report.
He really is. He is so insecure that he constantly seeks out affirmation through his affairs. He craves his mommy.
I watched that too, had to turn it off about halfway or less through. I noticed everything was Tenet's fault and how they were knocking the movie, and that Terry guy spewing his anti-war garbage. I switched to Oliver North doing a 9/11 special on his War Stories show.
Oh, please. There aren't enough conservative lawyers in the world to pull that off.
Welcome to FreeRepublic.
He fiddled with his manhood while the proverbial Rome burned.
and with all the vote recounting going on in Florida, checking those chads, Gore not conceding, etc., it took a while for Bush to assemble his cabinet, so they were only up and running, so to speak, for about 5 months before 9/11. Not much time to know everything that had gone on for the previous 8 years.
And in that short time, according to the assinine conspiracy theories, Bush & Co. (the dumbest man and cabinet members EVER!) pulled together the most diabolical plan of 9/11 to kill their own people, so ridiculously outrageous and disgusting that morons out there actually believe it.
Lewinsky also appeared on August 20...
In fairness, the US Military fired on Iraqi Radar installations on numerous occasions... and such attacks really did not do to much to distract from Clinton scandals.
get lost
It's a matter of TRUTH vs. lies...don't come back TROLL
Yes, so Schlesinger was all over that Michael Moore piece of crap. Oh, wait, never mind...
Unless you have been living under a rock for the last 18 years, you will have noticed that the Bushes do not engage in revenge, but the Clintons live by it. To label such obvious observations idiocy is to engage in either denial or disengenuousness.
I hate that word.
Tina07 is right. The fact is, that in light of the on-going disputed election in Florida, the Clintons instructed their various political appointees to not cooperate with the Bush transisiton teams, something that normally starts the day after the election. In this instance, any cooperation that did finally occur, started almost 2 months late. This was particularly true about any "sensitive" information.
The Bush people were in office only 233 days before the 9/11 attack. During that time, almost all previous policies of the previous administration (including the previous budget) were left in place pending review (this happens to ALL incoming administrations). Tons (literally) of reports had to be reviewed ... all while the newer people were still learning how the telephone systems worked and meeting their subordinates. Little of an operational nature takes place in such an environment.
Many of us here on Freerepublic were not pleased with Bush's decisions to leave many of the Clinton appointees in office including George Tenet at the CIA and Louis Freeh at the FBI. We are still not enamored of Bush's position on our borders or illegal aliens... so you will not find "worship" of Bush here... nor do we equate support of Clinton with "otherworldly conspiracy theories about 9/11" but we do see that many of those on the opposing side subscribe to both. What you will not find here is an unthinking, illogical acceptance of the MSM and the left's willingness to lay the blame for 9/11 at George Bush;'s feet.
Quite frankly, many here see George W. Bush's attempts to govern from the middle as a serious problem as well as a betrayal of his conservative Republican base. We see him, time and again, offer the Democrats olive branches only to have them sieze them to beat him over the head with them. Time and again, he has kept his end of political and legislative agreements only to have the Democrats abrogate and violate those agreements for their partisan advantage.
You will find that we did indeed criticize WJ Clinton for the many unethical and self-serving acts that he did while President of the US... however, when we criticized him, we had facts and evidence to back up that criticism... and those criticisms were based on thought, not feelings.
You will win no friends here by accusing Freepers of being members of a Cult or even hinting at it. Ad hominem arguement will get you no where except reported to the moderators. If you disagree... do so... but do not denigrate those on this forum who disagree with you.
Few people took Islamic Fascism seriously before 9-11. Pointing fingers is pointless, but whitewashing Clinton's record is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.