By now, you’ve probably heard that ABC is going to be running a two-part miniseries about the roots of 9/11, starring Harvey Keitel, on the anniversary of the attack. What you may not have heard, however, is that the film, written by Rush Limbaugh’s friend Cyrus Nowrasteh, glosses over Bush’s culpability, laying the blame almost completely at the feet of his oral sex-obsessed predecessor. Oh, and there’s also that little thing about the film being factually incorrect.
Clinton apparently asked for an advanced copy, and ABC wouldn’t give him one. By some fluke, however, it seems as though Rush Limbaugh and quite a few influential right wing bloggers got copies. A few are falling into the hands of non-neocons though. A copy has apparently landed at the offices of “Editor and Publisher.” [Thanks to Adam Baum for the link.] Here’s a clip from their review:
…”The Path to 9/11″ ends with a long segment on the day of the attacks and top officials’ response — though we only see President Bush in his speech to the nation, not in the Florida classroom with “The Pet Goat.”
…But what about the famous Aug. 6, 2001 “PDB” that warned the president about bin Laden’s determination to strike within the U.S.? We see Secretary Rice reading it in private and looking concerned, but we never see the president’s reaction.
However, on Sept. 4, 2001, Rice tells officials that thanks to the warnings in the PDB, the president is convinced al-Qaeda is a “real threat … the president is tired of swatting flies.” She seems to advocate taking some strong action and Clarke agrees, but Tenet argues against it. So in this telling, it appears that President Bush is in the vigilant/aggressive camp, perhaps thwarted by Clinton holdover Tenet…
…Finally we see how this plays out tragically on Sept. 11, 2001. O’Neill dies inside the WTC. Much attention is given to the decision to shoot down United flight 93, but the movie’s time frame now badly needs fixing given the recent revelations about what officials knew about that flight and when. The president, in any case, seems firmly in control, appearing on TV to promise help for all, and declaring, “terrorism against our nation will not stand.”
Certainly the Clinton administration deserves some of the blame for what happened on September 11, 2001. I don’t have a problem with that at all (so far as it’s factual). What I do have a problem with, however, is the whitewashing of the record when it comes to the role of the Bush administration, none of whom should be remembered by future generations as either heroic or prescient.
If you want to tell ABC how you feel, click here.
(I’m just anxiously awaiting the Keitel mashups on the horizon. Between his work in “Pulp Fiction” and “The Bad Lieutenant,” there’s a hell of a lot of good stuff that can be edited in to this docudrama. Maybe I’ll learn how to use iMovie and do it myself.)
13 Comments
While I wouldn’t have minded sending a letter to Mr. Iger, I don’t like the idea of sending it this way. I want to use my own words about this issue and it would have been nice if the Progress Report would have allowed that. I’ve taken down the address and will contact him through other channels.
ABC is making a mistake. It is going to alienate a lot of viewers who won’t be back to watch other shows.
mark, did you hear the president yesterday? Waterboarding isn’t torture after all, it’s a “technique”.
I think we’re going to be in camps before this is over.
Isn’t waterboarding a recreational activity?
CBS pulled their film on Nancy and Ron Reagan a few years ago after being attacked by the right. There’s no reason why the left shouldn’t be able to accomplish the same thing this time around. We just need to be as aggressive as the Rush and his Dittoheads were. We need to call ABC’s advertisors and threaten boycotts.
I’ve got a lot more to say on this, but maybe I should move it up to a new post on the front page…. Check back in a few hours and I’ll have something for you on the Scholastic “educational materials” being distributed in conjunction with the movie.
Strange, they didn’t mention Rich Blee, or anything relating to his pivital role.
OK, I bit. I searched “Who’s Rich Blee?” and came up with the following.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110921153919600
But now I’m all paranoid and don’t feel like listening to the audio which promises to answer the question.
This might be a better thread for your 9/11 comments, Wobblie.
iBobert, I am only talking about this on the other thread because my good friend JH brought it up and seemed interested, at least at first.
Jean isn’t the least bit interested, Wobblie. I’m sure you can see that. Jean has no interest in any of the details of what happened, and only wants to pretend to be level headed. Calling you a conspiracy theorist is just a cheap meaningless means to feeling superior. That’s all that’s about.
For starters regarding Towers 1 and 2, can we both agree that the design consisted of every floor being of essentially equal dimensions and structural strength?
That, I hope you understand, is not always the case in the design of skyscrapers. I assume you understand, the Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower), for example, is a stepped design. It’s essentially 2/9ths the floor space at the top as it is at the base of the tower.
IRobert, yes I understand that the designs of WTC I and 2 were pretty unique and some what revolutionary. I also understand that WTC 7 was not of the same design. In addition WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, and is the only steel frame building known to have had a total collapse as a result of fire. It is the total inability to logically explain the collapse of WTC 7 that exposes the whole fraud that we are supposed to accept.
The NIST Q and A page updated as recently as a year ago states,
“17. An emergency responder caught in WTC 7 between the 6th and 8th floors said he heard two loud booms. Isn’t that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building.”
I do understand the importance of using words that mean what you what them to mean. I have not bothered to evaluate all the NIST responds to evidence attacking their conclusions, but I do see in the above the use of language to obfuscate and not inform. The answer clearly states, “an explosion”. I understand that to mean a singular event. No one is claiming a single explosion brought down any of the buildings. Why not answer the question directly?
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
I agree the Building 7 collapse has a lot of oddities about it and has been covered up.
The Tower 1 and 2 collapses, however, are absolutely consistent with the physics of those structures and the damage caused by the airliners, the burning fuel and other materials.
Each floor of Towers 1 and 2 were essentially identical in dimension and in structural strength.
At 8:46:40, Flight 11 crashes into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) between floors 93 and 99.
At 9:02:57, Flight 175 crashes into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) between floors 77 and 85.