Most other blog outlets are busily consumed with a coordinated campaign to coerce ABC/Disney into revising or cancelling their $40 million dollar made-for-television docudrama about how Monica Lewinsky’s tonsils caused 9/11. You know what? I think the other bloggers are wrong.
Let ABC show their ridiculous and factually inaccurate docudrama. And then let us do a docudrama on 9/11 that brings in every critic, skeptic, nutter, and tin-foiler, and let us make mincemeat of both the pathetic 9/11 Commission Report (now serving as the Gospel According to Lee Hamilton) and the administration.
It sets a terrible precedent to insist that documentaties must adhere to the historical narrative laid out by government investigations. By this standard, ABC could not air Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, because it suggests that Lyndon Johnson had foreknowledge of a CIA plot to kill the President. We could never see a documentary about the efforts of William Casey and George H.W. Bush to prevent an October Surprise by Jimmy Carter in 1980 by securing a release of the Iranian hostages. Why not? Because a government investigation says it didn’t happen. Yeah, Lee Hamilton again. He’s a motherfucker. Check out his outstanding job on Iran-Contra. He’s a go-to guy.
So, let ABC know that you think their docudrama is crap if you want. Put Mickey Mouse ears on everyone and everything. I don’t give a crap. What’s important is not that ABC is airing speculative crap that contradicts a pathetic whitewash of a government report. What matters is that they would never do it to defend a Democrat or attack a Republican. And they won’t admit their $40 million docudrama is nothing but an advertisement for the 2006 GOP House of Representatives reelection.
You want a Path to 9/11? It’s called: Persian Gulf War I. Remember that one? Most Democrats opposed it. Correctly. But not fearless Al Gore. No sir. He was tough on Saddam, like a Presidential aspirant should be. He used that fact to bludgeon Bill Bradley in 2000 primaries.
But wouldn’t Saddam have a nuclear weapon by now if we hadn’t enticed him into invading Kuwait and destroyed his army? Yeah, maybe he would. Just like India and Pakistan and Israel. But he wouldn’t have a blood vengeance for the United States. If he wanted to nuke Israel, Israel would reciprocate many times over. Would Saddam have invaded Saudi Arabia? Just like with Kuwait, not if we told him not to.
It’s Saturday. I have insomnia. And I’m tired of the bullshit. 9/11 happened because there were enough people in the world that wanted it to happen. And they wanted it to happen because they were upset by or disappointed by the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Period.
Ms. Lewinsky’s tonsils had nothing to do with it.
The contrary view to your view could be…
LBJ was dead as were many of the people invovlved in the Warren commission and the US government at the time of the Stone’s movie. Furthermore, that movie was a pay movie that had to survive on ticket sales and was not guaranteed viewership. It was also not intended to help the Republicans (or Democrats) slander/libel their opposition right before a midterm election.
This movie will not have to compete in the marketplace of money and ideas. Instead it will be broadcast on American airwaves, over frequencies that ABC gets for free for providing content that is not overtly partisan. Additionally it will slander living and interested parties.
I agree, let the POS movie run- in a movie theatre. If people want to see it, let em. But not on my airwaves- for free. Because if you think that ABC/Disney will allow an opposing view point, lets ask them to run Michael Moore’s 9/11 and see how quickly that is squashed.
This is not about censorship, it is about blatant partisanship and lies being sold as truth and shown on American airwaves (not Democrat/Republican/independent airwaves). Let them sell their fantasy in a theatre where it belongs.
Do you not watch the main stream media everyday? They have opposing point of view every time they open their mouth. Charlie Gibson/Diane Sawyer/George Stephonopolous etc. Please. I can assume that you made the same comments regarding Dan Rather’s report on George Bush that aired on our free airwaves (60 Minutes) and was sold as the truth. And did you also object to the Reagan movie that completely distorted many facts about Ronald Reagan? This is a “docu drama” Not a documentary. So can I assume that if someone were to squash Micheal Moore’s film (docudrama) that that would prove it was a POS movie and full of blantent lies?
Path to 9/11 began in the 80’s when we funded these crazies to fight the Soviets.
link.
9/11 happened because there were enough people in the world that wanted it to happen. And they wanted it to happen because they were upset by or disappointed by the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
You’re getting close. Go back two more years to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Look again at the Wolfowitz Doctrine and take it from there.
It sets a terrible precedent to insist that documentaties must adhere to the historical narrative laid out by government investigations.
It’s a terrible precedent only if the so-called documentary was not being advertised as being based on the 9-11 Commission Report. And only if the artistic liberties taken with said report weren’t 180 degrees from the truth.
Sheesh, I thought we were the party of nuance.
An alternative to ABC’s crap has already been produced an aired by BBC in October 2004 – just not here. Its titled “The Power of Nightmares” and can been seen at One Planet One Nation.
I just watched the whole thing last night and it is truly amazing. I can’t begin to summarize it here – just suffice to say that it provides a historical account of both the Neocon and Islamist movements from the 1950’s to today, ending with a description of the neocon’s “precautionary principle” (close to Cheney’s one-percent doctrine, but even worse). The basic idea is that you invent the worst possible future scenario and then take steps to stop it from happening.
Anyway, I STRONGLY encourage you to take the time to watch this documentary – it has altered my view of the situation. And I’d love to see a movement to try to get someone like PBS to air it as an alternative to ABC’s lies.
Better yet, a loud and nasty campaign to get Disney to balance its crapumentary with another view. They won’t of course, but it might further destroy their credibility as an information source and as a corporation.
Thanks. A friend in the UK gave me a copy of the 3-part series, and it is wonderful. Real information is so welcome, and so hard to come by!
Anybody want to help with a new website? Some Massachewsits Librul has snarfed up ThePathSince911.com http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/9/13487/91029
Actually, I wanted to write a post on how accurate JFK was. Very little was fictionalized. Almost all the witness dialog came word for word from their Warren Commission testimony or the Garrison trial records.
Re LBJ – remember, in the film it was Garrison who speculated, not the filmmaker, and that was correct. Garrison really did say that, in the Playboy article and on his appearance at the tonight show. Garrison truly believed at one point that LBJ had to have some knowledge of what he was covering up.
All the scenes with the military overlaid by Donald Sutherland’s narrative came from the research of Fletcher Prouty and John Newman (who make a small cameo in the film, as does Jim Garrison himself, as Earl Warren!)
There was nothing that was invented solely for the film. Some of the characters were composites – such as the Kevin Bacon character, who was drawn from the testimony of three different people, two of which reported the wild sex scenes such as those depicted in the film. (When Clay Shaw was arrested, among other torture accoutrements in his place was a hook with dried blood on it hanging over the bed. The film went easy on this guy.)
As a historical drama, it was amazing that Stone DIDN’T fall for the more crazy conspiracy theories that were pushed on him. But he and screenwriter Zach Sklar, who had edited for Covert Action Quarterly and worked with Garrison editing his book on which the film is based – On the Trail of the Assassins. Even the scene with the bug was based on very real bugging that was discovered. The scenes where everyone was speculating as to what happened were also based on Garrison’s famous “roundtable” discussions.
The only thing invented for dramatic effect in the film was the subplot with Garrison’s wife. In fact, although Garrison had been a philanderer, she stuck with him before and after the trial. The movie studio pushed to get that in because they felt the story needed the “human” element.
But hey, that works for me. Keep the main events factual, and fictionalize the rest. But don’t fictionalize the main event!
You’re the expert in the JFK assassination. All I know is that there are tapes of LBJ telling some Senator a few days after the assassination that we had to make sure the American people didn’t get it in their head that the Soviets had anything to do with it. And I understand why. It might have led to the end of the world. But it was not a promising beginning to an investigation.
I think the same types of considerations hampered the 9/11 investigation. We had a list of people we wanted to pay for it, and we were not interested in anything that might implicate someone not on that list. (Saudi Arabia, as the most obvious example).
That’s right. LBJ was very concerned the assassination would lead to WWIII, thanks to the info the CIA carefully planted in the files of the FBI and other agencies, PRIOR to the assassination, alleging ties between Oswald and the Soviet Union. (The reality there is that the Soviet Union assumed from the moment Oswald entered their country that he was a CIA agent, and didn’t pay him much heed. Yuri Nosenko defected to America thinking this information would cause great relief. In fact, it caused him to be personally tortured for two years, in the hopes of getting him to allege something more damning about Oswald. He never broke, and the CIA ultimately released him and paid him for the insult. (Denied toothpaste and a toothbrush for many months, he was left with permanent dental damage, however.)
There’s all kinds of evidence that LBJ was complicit in the coverup. But to date, I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that he was involved before the fact. All such stories lead back to a character named Madeleine Brown who alleged a party at which Hoover and LBJ and others discussed the assassination. But her story grew from an innocuous gathering where nothing much was discussed to an assassination planning party. The growth of her story seemed brought on by sudden publicity (and perhaps some attendant income).
In fact, LBJ found himself unable to control the investigation. Odd behavior for a top-level conspirator! He wanted the FBI to handle it, but was pressured by Joe Alsop (an acknowledged CIA asset in the media) to create what became the Warren Commission. And if LBJ was ruthless enough and powerful enough to kill his way into office, why wasn’t he ruthless enough and powerful enough to kill his way into re-election? He didn’t seek reelection after his first full term. And he told people in his administration that he suspected the CIA’s hand in the assassination.
Read this with open eyes and much skepticism.
link.
I had expected something relating to JFK. That was about Bin Laden. Interesting though.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-elf08.html
(more at the link above.)
Boo, first of all, why are you echoing the National Review’s pretense that this is a documentary? It doesn’t claim to be, and that’s part of the problem: it advertises falsely that it’s based on the Commission report, but at the same time defends itself as merely taking the liberties we expect from fiction.
On the larger point, I share your uncomfortableness at the spectacle of the left establishment screaming for supression of expression. Where we’re at is, we’re basically screwed. We exist in an information environment that is controlled by a range of actors ranging from extreme right to center-right. Yeah, yeah, the blogs and all, but nobody’s looking at them compared to the ones who will be watching ABC. So we have to think about whether freedom of speech means anything when only one group has the podium. I think the “blogosphere” has hoisted itself on its own petard to a degree with its self-congratulatory fantasy that it has evened out the media playing field.
The left-libertarian part of me would like to settle for your solution. But who is going to make this movie that you propose so casually? Who is going to show it? Not ABC or Fox or CBS or even PBS. So it will be seen by a few thousand political junkies on the Net. Is that a sufficient response to a coordinated partisan propaganda attack by a major corporation and its political allies?
Maybe the real solution is to quit trying to stop the showing and go all out to show the lies it spreads. Use whatever power we have to make Disney an example of how badly a corporation can get hurt when it crosses us with lies and blatant political whoredom. The right did a fairly good job of that in the case of Michael Moore, whose film lied about nothing. We can and should do better with Disney and the individuals there who made this happen. Stock prices are a very vulnerable thing. So are the job prospects of the executives who sent them into the toilet.
I thought I called it a docudrama? Didn’t I?
Anyway, my point is that we are not fighting for the truth here, we are fighting for the truth as told by the 9/11 Commission. They say it is based on it, we say it is not. Fine. But what if it were? It would still be almost as bad.
The Commission Report and the history it sanctifies, are the reason we are in the bind we are in today.
I’d like to see someone do a piece that varies from that narrative without having the hammer come down.
Advertising the piece as in-line with the official line, when it isn’t, is a problem. But that is not the precedent we are setting.
Oops. Did you change your piece or did I misread “docudrama”? I suspect the latter, in which case apologies. Me read pretty one day.
You make a good point about how we’re appearing to defend the crap from the Commission as if being true to it would make the movie more true. Nonetheless, the Report is the word on 9/11 to the vast majority of Americans. Garbage like Disney’s libelous propaganda piece gains credibility by hitching a ride on the Report’s scabby back.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s time for us to ruin some people over this the way Rove tried to do to Michael Moore. We’ve been on the receiving end of a culture war for decades now. Either we finally shoot back or we just forget it and take whatever they throw at us.
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
Consequences of what? What consequences?
The consequence we suffer from, to my mind, is our denial that there is a culture war and that we need to engage it.
the consequences of making it a mortal sin to air anything that deviates from the 9/11 Commission, whether it claims to adhere to it or not.
I don’t think that’s the only reason this trash is being opposed. Nor do I see why there should be any consequences to demanding truth in advertising. They claim its based on the Report. It isn’t. That is the strategically effective point against it, even if, from our point of view it isn’t the most important one.
true. I’d rather we were talking about Iraq.
I agree with you point Boo; free speech, no matter how bad, is for everyone.
The blogosphere is getting sucked into this because the real fight has not been revealed to very many.
This is a battle by the ‘Jihad’ wing of the Republicans against the ‘Friends of Hillary’. The ‘Jihadists’ are seeking to hang the blame for 9/11 around the Big Dog’s neck so they can use it later against her when she runs for President in 2008.
And her numerous friends in the DLC and the rest of the ‘Democrat’ party whose only interest is taking power so they and their cabal can have their turn at the pubic trough have made this ‘blogswarm’ more than usually effective by piling on.
Neither side has any interest in the truth, only in partisan political gain.
The blogosphere needs to back out of this steaming pile of crap.
Hmm…talk about unintended consequences. If this mess ends up denying Hillary the nomination I’ll start believing that EVERYTHING really does have a silver lining. And I suppose that might just happen. Interesting.
I think you are missing the point here as to why people are so up in arms, especially Democratic leaders like Reid, Clinton, Albright and so on. There is a long history with the GOP behind these kinds of attacks going back to Yalta at the end of WWII.
The GOP needed to rehabilitate themselves on national security, being isolationist after WWII was a big political problem. So they fabricated the lie that Roosevelt was weak and distracted at the Yalta Conference with Stalin, and so he was easily tricked into signing Eastern Europe over to the Soviets. The fact was that Stalin already had Eastern Europe in the bag and was already setting up Communist regimes. There was nothing to negotiate away, the best the US could hope for was to stop the Soviets at a clear line so that more countries didn’t fall under their influence. We saved Greece and several other countries from Soviet domination with those negotiations. That didn’t matter to the GOP propogandists, the Yalta lie was very effective, it undercut the Democrats on national security for several decades, until Kennedy came to power. Even today you will here some old timers talk about how Roosevelt was tricked by Stalin at Yalta. The lie has lived for 50 years with horrible effects on Dems political prospects!
Finally Kennedy and Johnson came to power and that lie began to lose its power. We all know what happened then, Vietnam. The GOP once again needed to bolster their security credentials and undercut the Dems. It didn’t matter that Nixon was elected on a platform to get us out of Vietnam, they spread the lie that the reason we lost was because of Jane Fonda liberals and damn hippies, they used it to turn the word Liberal into a dirty word. Somehow this caused us to lose the war, and if we had just stuck to our guns we would have prevailed, but their Liberal weakness cost us victory. That charge was used by Reagan and many other GOP hopefuls to trash Dems on national security for decades, and we are finally starting to get over it.
So what do we have now. We have the GOP trotting out the same tactic, they are blaming 9/11 on Clinton, the lie there is that because he was distracted by the Lewinski scandal he didn’t see the terrorist threat. The evidence shows that we were suprised by the Cole and to a the Africa Embassy bombings were less of a suprise as the Clinton administration ramped up efforts against Bin Laden. There are things to criticize for sure, but I think it is absolutely wrong to blame Clinton for 9/11. Of course the goal here isn’t just to tar Clinton, it is to make Dems look weak and wishy washy on national security issues, and create an environment where the GOP dominates on national security once again.
It has worked before, twice, and is one of the reasons that Dems are handicapped in running for the Presidency. This matters a great deal. This is extremely important. Who do you think is going to get the blame for GOP national security failures? We need to crush this NOW. We can’t let them do this. If 9/11 is Clintons fault, so is Afghanistan, and by association, Iraq will get pinned on us as well. It is not a logical jump, but there are powerful emotional triggers than can be used to pin these GOP failures on Democrats, we can’t let them do that. Once we get tarred, it will be almost impossible to undo and it will hurt us for a generation.
Another rumor come fact that was spread, and is just now dying out as the old-timers go, is that FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it. I just recently visited the USS Arizona, and the US taxpayer supported memorial actually directly addresses this RUMOR because it had gained so much currency.
You can bet that the fictions in this movie will also become “fact” once they are shown on our American airwaves and said “facts” will become common knowledge that will stick around for the next 50 years.
I sure as heck don’t want to allow ABC to give power to these lies without some sort of fight.
I don’t give a flying fuck about accurately depicting the conclusions of the 9/11 commission – in fact, I’d probably be fairly furious if such a show did stick to the commisssion’s conclusions. Your point is the salient one.
As digby said in Why It Matters:
This is not a documentary or a docudrama or ANYTHING other than a pack of Repub LIES. Don’t call it ANYTHING ELSE.
I would hate to wreck whatever personnel life/peace the Clintons have left, BUT if I had my druthers I would wish to see President Clinton plus anybody else who cares to get on stage with him state categorically right after Bush’s speech that the whole show is a SH$TBOAT of Repub lies designed to win the elections and HAVE THEY NO SHAME!
We don’t want to go quietly into this night – this is the time to ignite a FIVE YEAR anniversary 9/11 FIRESTORM and HAVE AT IT as a NATIONAL DEBATE. Throw in the mess in Iraq and the almost total lack of real security for our country. Ride the resulting SH$TSTORM all the way to a clean sweep of BOTH the House and Senate.
We have HAD ENOUGH of the whole “flush the US down the toilet” Bush Presidency! Got it?
My contrary view is that with all of our yelling, we are giving loads of free publicity to this load of crap.
My apologies for yelling. I’m rather excited that we’ve been given such a splendid opportunity.
Well, the internet bloggers aren’t going to stop ABC from showing of “The Path to 9-11,” but I imagine that Disney is going to take some pretty bad hits after the fact. I can see nothing good for ABC coming from this. Maybe American Airlines will sue them.
There’ll be some who’ll believe it as accurate in spite of all the noise. A buddy of mine gets his background information on the Afghanistan situation by watching “Rambo III.”
Maybe when the Dems win they’ll revoke ABC’s license.
I’m with Boo 1000% on this…
So ABC decided to broadcast a piece of shit film that fictionalizes instead of relying on the semi-fictional 9/11 Commission Report.. who gives a shit? Not me. I still am not even sure what the heck happened ON board Flight 93 much less what really happened that led up to whatever happened on board.
I never thought I’d see the day I’d be praising Goebbels but at least the man made some CONVINCING propaganda. This Path to 9/11 looks like the biggest piece of boring, partisan, loopy garbage. I bet you the ratings in the first 30 minutes are spectacular and then nosedive.
And even IF I somehow, in some twisted way, AGREE with the Path to 9/11’s writers, it still makes the Republicans look like idiots. If Clinton was “too distracted” by Lewinsky to get bin Laden, whose fucking fault was that?? And who was shouting “Wag the Dog” when Clinton DID send missiles into Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan?
And it’s been five damn Lewinsky-free years for Pet Goat lovin’ Bush, so what’s his excuse for not getting bin Laden?
I dont even care if this stupid “docu-drama” is a mega hit in the ratings. If Americans are stupid enough to keep electing the kind of people who are in office (including the House and Senate) then they deserve to learn their “history” from movies like Path to 9/11. Try reading a book sometime you mouth breathers!
Pax
Frankly, my sense is that people in the hinterlands are sick to death of everything about 9/11. How many are going to stick it out for fours hours? My sense is not many.