Posted on 09/11/2006 6:22:09 AM PDT by Grig
NEW YORK -- ABC made several editing changes to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" following furious protests by Clinton administration officials that it fabricated scenes about their actions prior to the terrorist attacks.
But the network resisted calls to cancel the $40 million miniseries, airing commercial-free over two nights. Part two is scheduled for Monday, with an interruption for President Bush's address to the nation.
Several scenes were cut or changed from the movie that aired Sunday and finished 20 minutes shy of its three-hour time slot. ABC has called it a dramatization, not a documentary.
One scene, 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 hurt the 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."
Another scene in the critics' cut showed 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.
Another scene in the movie that depicted a team of CIA operatives poised outside of bin Laden's fortress in Afghanistan, ready to attack, was substantially shortened 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 effect of the editing in that scene is to deflect specific blame. It ends with actor Donnie Wahlberg, portraying the head of the CIA team in Afghanistan, saying: "Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?"
In the critics' version, Wahlberg's statement is followed directly by archival footage of Clinton's video testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Sunday, that footage was not included.
Twice, the network de-emphasized the role of the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks in its film.
The critics' version contained a note in the opening credits that the film is "based on the 9/11 commission report." That was omitted Sunday.
In a separate disclaimer that ran three times Sunday, ABC 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."
The disclaimer emphasized that the movie 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 said.
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson said in a statement Sunday night that ABC and its parent, The Walt Disney Co., "chose fiction over fact and entertainment over education in airing their TV show."
Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was "disingenuous and dangerous" not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie.
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 member, said on the ABC News show that he's told the film is equally harsh on the administrations of President Bush and his father.
"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."
"If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed," said Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor.
If people come away from this article without realizing that Kean is a suckass pansy milquetoast shitbag, then the article has failed.
You make a good point. The Democrats and Clinton continually whine and want to rewrite history.
I will.
He wasn't disengaged at all. From what we know, the issue of islamic terrorism was known all too well to the Clinton White House. He refused to confront it, not because he was distracted by Lewinskygate, but because he is a feckless human being, without a shred of character or integrity. Confronting terrorism in a meaningful way would make some percentage of the population not like him, and someone so in need of the approval of others could not stand that.
Save for context.
ABC should run clip after clip of Clinton saying "I need to get back to doing the business of the people".
If he was doing the business of the people, then he was lying.
I agree 100%. He acted like an unprincipled man would.
You are dead-on!
LLS
"Are there no men in Washington, or are they all cowards?"
Actually that line was said by the Afghani head of the Northern Alliance - much more powerful coming from him. It showed that if he could get it, then so could Bin Laden, that they were fighting with Washington Windbags.
I am amused that Clinton (documented perjurer who questions the meaning of "is") and Sandy Bergler (convicted document stealer of classifed papers that proves their complicity in doing nothing) yell Foul - they simply can't stand anything resembling truth about their years in the White House! Why should we care about Liars Protesting that their Lies are ignored? They put my life in danger, and my country on the ropes. I thought the ABC movie went easy on these guys. It could have been a lot worse. Why isn't Buzz Patterson on all the talking heads' shows???? He was there. He saw it all. Dereliction of Duty laid it all out.
Compare the distractions of Clinton to the distractions of Bush. Bush is taking major heat every day from the left. How many d*mn congressional hearings have been called for and demanded? How many from his cabinet have been pulled off of their jobs to answer to the likes of Kennedy and Schumer? Distractions?
Through all this mud being slung around the one thing Bush has done was stay on course and on message. Clinton couldn't, he wasn't capable.
Yes, I think the main impact of this film is not going to be the blaming part, but the ugliness of the Islamists' vision and the need to start to fight them with everything we have. BTW, I thought it was excellent as a movie.
Some days, I think the sarcasm tag is unnecessary.
I guess today ain't one of those days.
That may be in the second part -- we are still in Jan 2000.
Kean proves to be a RINO over and over again.
Yep, that's pretty much the description of the typical Dem voter.
I wonder what they would do for voters in a district if nobody died there for 2 years?
Shalom.
Great analysis, it never pays to hold back!
To make the quote accurate, remove "the business of"
Shalom.
I agree with your observation. The Islamofascists were at war with us and we didn't know it was going on, as we should have known. The decision, under Ford or Carter, to scrap our use of foreign human intelligence hurt us as much as the attacks themselves did.
It is fair to point out 8 Years of Clinton had to have more incidents than 8 Months under President Bush. But, it also fair to say President Bush reacted better and stronger than Clinton or the Democrats ever would have responded.
The war in Iraq was needed and necessary, and it IS a part of the whole War On Terror. Change was sorly needed in the Middle East and President Bush did the right thing even though the Democrats demonize him for doing it. History will decide whether this was good or bad but I will support what President Bush did, as well as what he is doing. I believe President Bush has changed the status quo in the Mideast, and history will reflect his actions as being nothing less than historic.
It was also powerful given the scene later when the Taliban was coming after the Northern Alliance when he turns to the same agent and says, "You try to kill Bin Laden, the Taliban comes after me. This is all your doing."
Washington's cowardice was paid for with the blood of others long before it was paid for with the blood of 9/11/01.
Shalom.
They would lose!
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.