Jump to content

The Path to 9/11: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 6: Line 6:
The docudrama, claiming to be based on [[The 9/11 Commission Report]], already faces controversy and accusations of bias and partisanship.
The docudrama, claiming to be based on [[The 9/11 Commission Report]], already faces controversy and accusations of bias and partisanship.


In addition, the film's writer/producer Nowrasteh has been accused of having a [[right-wing]] bias. He has described himself as "probably more of a libertarian than a strict conservative." Rush Limbaugh has described him as a friend and promoted his work on ''The Rush Limbaugh Show''. Nowrasteh has dismissed the effect of his political beliefs on his work, which is often based on true and controversial stories, saying he doesn't "want to just be a conservative version of Michael Moore." <ref> http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=462 </ref>."
The film's writer/producer Nowrasteh has been accused of having a [[right-wing]] bias. He has described himself as "probably more of a libertarian than a strict conservative." Rush Limbaugh has described him as a friend and promoted his work on ''The Rush Limbaugh Show''. Nowrasteh has dismissed the effect of his political beliefs on his work, which is often based on true and controversial stories, saying he doesn't "want to just be a conservative version of Michael Moore." <ref> http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=462 </ref>."


The main source of the controversy, however, stems from charges of inaccuracy in the portion of the film concerned with the [[Clinton administration]] in the [[1990s]]. Critics say the screenplay makes it appear as though blame for the events that took place on September 11th, 2001 should be placed on Clinton and his [[Presidential cabinet|cabinet]]. One such well-known example is a scene in which then [[National Security Advisor]], [[Sandy Berger]], does not approve of the order to take out a surrounded [[Osama bin Laden]] and tells the squad in [[Afghanistan]] that they will have to do the job without official authorization and then hangs up the phone. According to Berger himself as well as the official 9/11 Commission Report, this never happened.
The main source of the controversy, however, stems from charges of inaccuracy in the portion of the film concerned with the [[Clinton administration]] in the [[1990s]]. Critics say the screenplay makes it appear as though blame for the events that took place on September 11th, 2001 should be placed on Clinton and his [[Presidential cabinet|cabinet]]. One such well-known example is a scene in which then [[National Security Advisor]], [[Sandy Berger]], does not approve of the order to take out a surrounded [[Osama bin Laden]] and tells the squad in [[Afghanistan]] that they will have to do the job without official authorization and then hangs up the phone. According to Berger himself as well as the official 9/11 Commission Report, this never happened.

Revision as of 16:25, 7 September 2006

The Path to 9/11 is a two-part miniseries to be aired in the United States on ABC television on September 10, 2006 at 8 p.m. EDT and September 11, 2006 at 8 p.m. EDT, as well as on the Seven Network in Australia, TVNZ in New Zealand, and BBC Two in the UK on the same dates. The film dramatizes the 1993 terrorist attack upon the World Trade Center in New York City and the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The film was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh and directed by David L. Cunningham.

Controversy

The docudrama, claiming to be based on The 9/11 Commission Report, already faces controversy and accusations of bias and partisanship.

The film's writer/producer Nowrasteh has been accused of having a right-wing bias. He has described himself as "probably more of a libertarian than a strict conservative." Rush Limbaugh has described him as a friend and promoted his work on The Rush Limbaugh Show. Nowrasteh has dismissed the effect of his political beliefs on his work, which is often based on true and controversial stories, saying he doesn't "want to just be a conservative version of Michael Moore." [1]."

The main source of the controversy, however, stems from charges of inaccuracy in the portion of the film concerned with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. Critics say the screenplay makes it appear as though blame for the events that took place on September 11th, 2001 should be placed on Clinton and his cabinet. One such well-known example is a scene in which then National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, does not approve of the order to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden and tells the squad in Afghanistan that they will have to do the job without official authorization and then hangs up the phone. According to Berger himself as well as the official 9/11 Commission Report, this never happened.

According to the Report, it was CIA director George Tenet, not Berger, who called off the supposed "operation to assassinate UBL Osama bin Laden". Furthermore, from what Berger and the Report say, this "operation" was never in the execution stage in the first place because it was not feasible that local tribes and warlords would assist in his capture and delivery to the United States[2].

One of the 11 panel members of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste [3], and former Terror Czar Richard Clarke have also come forward to confirm that the Berger scene is very much a fabrication based on the facts that:

  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 Osama bin Laden.
  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 [4].

Furthermore, ABC, who is offering the movie to schools and critics and to Right Wing blogs and Rush Limbaugh, has allegedly "refused" to give Bill Clinton a copy of the movie. According to Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton's office, Bill Clinton's office requested a copy of the movie so that they could view it before it went on the air and they were subsequently denied. Carson has also confirmed that Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger have also requested a copy and are also not receiving copies [5].

This prompted Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger to write letters [6] [7] to ABC, asking why they had not received copies and also asking why ABC has chosen to run a movie whose accuracy is highly in question.

Albright, in particular, said the following:

"For example, one scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true. In fact, The 9/11 Commission Report states (page 117), “Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin.”

Through all of this, ABC still insists that their movie is non-partisan and currently has no plans to make changes or corrections[8].

Notes