Disney's Dubious Path to 9/11

[mousepod]

Here's where I see the difference between this movie and Michael Moore's flicks: Moore's movies debuted in theaters - this movie debuts on broadcast television. Broadcast television is still theoretically the domain of the people - that's why the FCC can do stupid things like fine broadcasters for saying "dirty" things.

I have three basic problems with the current situation:
- It's on broadcast television.
- It's being presented by "ABC News" - implying that the "docu" part of docudrama is more legit than it apparently is.
- The timing is incredibly suspect.

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

A quote from NY Times critic Alessandra Stanley:
"Dramatic license was certainly taken, but blame is spread pretty evenly across the board. It's not the inaccuracies of 'The Path to 9/11' that make ABC's miniseries so upsetting. It's the situation on the ground in Afghanistan now."

No... it's the lies.

I notice your Ms. Stanley has this to say about the lead up to 9/11...

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to direct me to the page number in the 9/11 commission report that makes this charge. We've all read the 9/11 commission report, haven't we?

We're watching myths being created before our eyes, folks. If the media and politicians and actors can change the truth of the 9/11 story in 5 years, imagine what's happened to the widely accepted "Word of God" in 2,000 years.

Tie THAT into your other thread.

But I am encouraged, especially by the letter from Senate Democratic leadership yesterday...

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest.

<snip>

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged.

Trustee of the public airwaves... trust of the American people and the United States Congress... I like! Threaten that broadcast license!!

M-I-C... See ya later, ABC!

Now, do I expect ABC to lose their license, even if they air this trash? No.

But, I hope they realize the error of their ways and pull this program before air date. If not, zapping all their channels on my Tivo won't be all that hard; certainly not as hard as cancelling my upcoming WDW trip.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Scaeagles, how did you feel about the Reagan movie that was pulled from broadcast on CBS due to conservative pressure?

Originally Posted by Scaeagles

Most posters here are quite intelligent (though I would also claim many are misguided ). Sorry to say, but i don't think the general population is. The problem with making up stories about real people that actually existed is that the less than brilliant will think it is true. I would be willing to bet that all 25% mentioned in the poll would believe that Reagan actually said "they that live in sin shall die in sin" or whatever the exact movie quote is, as well as the other offensive and unfactual references and comments are in the miniseries.

Protests happen all the time. Rush Limbaugh was the spokesman for Florida OJ for a bit, but NOW protested so vocally, even though they were small in numbers, and applied pressure to have him removed.

Let's say a miniseries is created about Clinton. In that miniseries he is portrayed as not having a relationship with Monica L, but applying the power of his office to pressure her into doing what she doesn't want to do or maybe actually raping her. Though I am not a Clinton fan by ANY means, I would find that offensive because it is simply historical revisionism, not artistic license, and should not be broadcast, for the same reason that a story about that shouldn't be printed in a local newspaper.

Artistic license does not entitle the artist in question to make up stories about the subject because they could imagine it happening.

Personally, I think CBS pulled it because of liability issues. I believe Showtime will not run it for the same reason. The Reagan family and his loyal former staff and cabinet members would surely not allow this slander to go unchallanged. I may not understand all of the legal issues involved in slander, but as I understand it, if you print something about someone you know is not true you are liable for damages. I don't think the National Enquirer knows certain stories they have been sued for are not true, but they haved been sued successfully when they have had no evidence to back up their stories.

CBS felt the public pressure, too, sure. But that is OK. You can say what you want to in this country, but must be prepared to pay the price. CBS apparently did not want to pay it. It is not censorship

Note: I added the bolding. Link

[wendybeth]

Moonliner!!!!!!
(Sorry, Scaeagles- we love ya, but even you have to admit this is good).

[Scrooge McSam]

IOKIYAR

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Perhaps someone would be so kind as to direct me to the page number in the 9/11 commission report that makes this charge. We've all read the 9/11 commission report, haven't we?

Page 135 of the PDF version of the report lists four factors that the report says likely had a cumulative downward pressure on the willingness to use violence against bin Laden. The four factors are:

1) The apparent failure of the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan to accomplish anything of significance.
2) The "wag the dog" stories in the press and the Republicans. This is the idea that aggressive acts by Clinton were to distract the nation from his Lewinsky problems. The report does not say that they were intended to distract just that the idea that they were caused problems for the Clinton administration.
3) Intense partisanship (that is, any action, regardless of merit, resulted in bickering)
4) The apparent evidence that the strike in Sudan had been on a non-threatening site.

I don't know how exactly it is presented in the movie. The report also notes that Tenet and Berger testified that they didn't feel contrained by these things. But the report does explicitly contradict that claim.

It does not lay out any kind of relative importance of any of those factors, just says that they probably were factors.

To the extent that the pages following this lay "blame" with Clinton it seems to be for an environment of communication that created confusion between various agencies as to what actions were allowed in regard to bin Laden. The Clinton White House apparently felt that they had authorized pretty much carte blanche to kill bin Laden but the CIA felt they were only authorized to kill bin Laden under very limited circumstances and that Clinton and Berger used different and ambiguous language in issuing instructions to different people.

Again, I don't really blame anybody for 9/11. Hindsight will find many, many points where the future could have been changed by different action. That doesn't mean they were options that could reasonably have been taken at the time.

Without watching the ABC show myself I'm not ready to outright condemn it. But I'll probably never see it either (I'm not even home this weekend and it isn't going to find its way to my Netflix queue). In general, though, I am disapproving of the "docu-drama" genre because they all generally have significant historical flaws and usually are a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can claim historical fidelity in spirit while saying any specific distortions were made for artistic, time compression, or various other factors allowed in fiction.

As for the idea that this is an effort by ABC to boost Bush or the Republicans for the upcoming elections, who are the people in on this? Pretty much the entire top leadership of The Walt Disney company and ABC are Democrats (at least to the degree that such things can be determined by campaign contributions). Iger, for example, so far this year has given $15,200 directly to Democrats and $2,500 to Republicans (and $5,200 to individual D candidates and none to individual R candidates).

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

... likely had a cumulative downward pressure on the willingness to use violence against bin Laden. The four factors are:

1) The apparent failure of the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan to accomplish anything of significance.
2) The "wag the dog" stories in the press and the Republicans. This is the idea that aggressive acts by Clinton were to distract the nation from his Lewinsky problems. The report does not say that they were intended to distract just that the idea that they were caused problems for the Clinton administration.
3) Intense partisanship (that is, any action, regardless of merit, resulted in bickering)
4) The apparent evidence that the strike in Sudan had been on a non-threatening site.

I don't know how exactly it is presented in the movie. The report also notes that Tenet and Berger testified that they didn't feel contrained by these things. But the report does explicitly contradict that claim.

No sir... it does not.

In the paragraph directly above the one you cite...

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton's problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him "that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

The passage you cite specifically mentions "willingness to use violence".

[Alex]

And it says those thing affected their willingness to use violence.

Like I said, I don't know how the ABC show presents it so I don't know how at odds it is with what the report says:

The report says the Clinton people say they weren't constrained by Clinton but that a non-explicit cumulative effect likely was there.

The report says there is no reason to believe that they were ever explicitly constrained because of these things.

You can disagree with the conclusion but it is still there in the report. So, just to put it together:

Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton's problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him "that they are going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." All his aides testified to us that they based their advice solely on national security considerations. We have found no reason to question their statements.

The failure of the strikes, the "wag the dog" slur, the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa evidence likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against Bin Laden. Berger told us that he did not feel any sense of constraint."

You asked for a page cite for the quote you offered. That is what I was giving. I do not think it supports what exactly is said in the quote but it does appear to be the source for that statement and does support the idea that the 9/11 commission believes the Lewinsky affair had some impact on how the Clinton administration was willing to act.

Again, I don't know how the show actually represents this.

Hell, it makes perfect sense to me. Clinton was in an environment where every form of aggressive policy action on his part was used as a bludgeon against him. It is only reasonable, especially for a poll-driven political organization like the Clinton White House that this would cause some trepidation but additional such actions.

Of course, if I were to blame someone as a result of this it wouldn't be to blame Clinton (asking a politician to not be political is stupid) but rather on the Republicans for being stupid and creating such a vitriolic atmosphere.

I personally believe that if Clinton had killed Bin Laden in 1997 it would today be used as an exmaple of misuse of American military power. Only in the hindsight of 9/11 are we willing to have endorsed any violent means necessary to have killed the man.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

.

Hell, it makes perfect sense to me. Clinton was in an environment where every form of aggressive policy action on his part was used as a bludgeon against him. It is only reasonable, especially for a poll-driven political organization like the Clinton White House that this would cause some trepidation but additional such actions.

If only we had a President who just did his job and followed his beliefs no matter what the polls said....

[Alex]

I don't think ignoring polls is necessarily better (we tend to want politicians to be poll driven when we disagree with them and to be staunch supporters of their own opinion when we agree with them). Nor do I think that Bush is one who ignores the polls, there are just institutional factors that pretty much force the president to continue misdirected policies even once they become obvious failures.