9/11: Whom to blame?

$40 Million dollars spent on a Republican smear-piece two months before the mid-term elections, the result of which will determine whether Bush and his cronies are investigated for their criminal actions.

Tell us, Jake: Where did this money come from, and who is behind this project?

rms

what would bin Laden prefer us to focus on?

Ask Bush. They're best buddies.

JT-
How can you possibly defend the production and public broadcasting of such a bundle of mistruths and misinformation which have most obviously been created to make the Idiot Bush and his Administration of Inepts look good?

How can you possibly defend the public broadcasting of this republican misinformation campaign? Even those individuals involved in the official 9/11 investigation have said this 'docufantasy' that ABC is so looking forward to broadcasting is obvioualy an attempt to make an unwarranted political statement. It's so obviously politically prejudiced that it's a joke to anyone with a grain of intelligence.

How can you possibly defend the plan to air this distortion of everything that it claims to be, and without the interruption of commercials, no less? How? How? How?

I could go on and on, but the final fact is that this is just another example of the main stream media having turned into the propoganda machine of the Republican Party and the corporatism that runs this country.

Bushism is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations, and guess what JT? You, and media apologists like you, hiding their heads in the sand instead of seeing the truth, are a part of the media problem that this country now faces. Propoganda and mistruths are the menu of the main stream media, and that's precisely why more and more people every day are switching off the tv news and not reading the MS press.

This 'documentary' could hold it's own against Charles Anslinger's "Reefer Madness" as politically propogated trash arising from the paranoia and misinformation of the Republican right, and in no way is it possible to justify either the production or the distribution of this garbage.

If this misinformation is in fact broadcast as scheduled, the
Democratic masses are going to bring Disney to it's knees, and ABC could very well be, and should be next.

Peace.

you can not put words in a real persons mouth in a "docu-drama" and call it literary license.It is just a lie.

I am appalled and saddened by ABC wanting to air the pseudo documentary. Here we are, about to celebrate,(horrible word) the fifth anniversary of a horrible event and ABC decides to politisize the event. I thought that yesterday's interview with President Bush showed where ABC stands. Our country has never been this divided. I have always been proud to be an American and would like to see patriotism in this country be revived-we are all Americans no matter what our party affiliation. I no longer want to watch ABC television.

ABC should just join with FOX News and end the charade that they are separate entities. Rush Limbaugh is no doubt proud of the new GOP subsidiary ABC.

You want to know the truth about why and how this crock-u-mentary evolved? Check out Crooks and Liars' website.
{"The Path to 9/11" is produced and promoted by a well-honed propaganda operation consisting of a network of little-known right-wingers working from within Hollywood to counter its supposedly liberal bias. This is the network within the ABC network. Its godfather is far right activist David Horowitz, who has worked for more than a decade to establish a right-wing presence in Hollywood and to discredit mainstream film and TV production. On this project, he is working with a secretive evangelical religious right group founded by The Path to 9/11's director David Cunningham that proclaims its goal to "transform Hollywood" in line with its messianic vision.}

Jake, you're really not helping yourself or your news division here. Pretending that you're above the fray is, well, like pretending that "Path to 9/11" is not a partisan movie.

As for "conspiracies," I recommend that you check out Max Blumenthal's piece on Huffingtonpost.com detailing who is behind the movie. Hint: they're partisan hacks.

Your implication that people can EITHER focus on improving our defenses OR focus on making sure history is accurately depicted is quite the false choice. I'll bet that many of the people who are angry about this movie are the same people who write their Senators and Congressmen complaining about the lack of port security, airport security, border security, and the military as well as the National Guard being overextended in Iraq. We're the same people who write our representatives encouraging them to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. We can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

Regarding bin Laden, I don't think he much cares what we do this weekend. But he's probably thrilled to still be alive despite Bush's "dead or alive" statements of nearly five years ago. With Iraq turned into a breeding ground for terrorists, the incidence of worldwide terrorism increasing, the Taliban regaining strength in Afghanistan, and have assurances from Pakistan that it will leave him alone so long as he doesn't jaywalk, I would imagine that he's thinking the past five years have turned out pretty well.

Cheers, Jake. Have a fantastic weekend.

Hulk smash!

What problem with tampering with public information and defaming one political party less than 60 days before a highly contested election don't you get?

Propaganda is the problem.

It's bad enough you in ABC News and other media are Bush's lapdogs. ABC is presenting something most people will think is true and not fiction!

Please brush up on how propaganda works.

I knew that the educational system in this country was rapidly declining, but I had no idea how bad the situation was until I heard that the writers at ABC Entertainment don't know the difference between fact and fiction. The events of 9-11 are real; Americans lost their lives and our country is still reeling from the experience.

I believe that ABC should pull this movie for several reasons: 1) President Clinton, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger claim that they are misquoted in the film and that several scenes that are depicted never happened; 2) We are about to hold mid-term elections; the film is causing a great deal of controversy that could affect the outcome of the elections. ABC should at least postpone the film until the elections are over; 3) People who hate President Clinton will believe anything that denigrates him, even if they've been told that it's fiction. It would be terrible for ABC to give Clinton haters false ammunition to use against Hillary in the coming election; 4) The lies that are in the film will be perpetuated and shown to future generations; ABC should not be involved in such a gross distortion of history.

I have no intention of watching this movie, and if it does air, I will cancel my Disney membership and will boycott ABC for one year.

I'm neither a fan of the 911 commission, that interviewed many Bush Admin officials without the benefit of them being under oath, nor what I've heard of The Path to 911.

I agree with others here that you cannot distance yourself from the ABC banner, when the permanent boycott of ABC/Disney begins ABC News of course will be included. That the corporate snake of ABC has many heads is not a reason for ABC News to be excluded from a boycott. (nice try)

Jake Tapper's energies might be better spent writing his managers and insisting ABC Entertainment pull the fabricated GOP smear movie altogether, while it can.

Further. I do hope a new Democratic Congress will get to the bottom of just how this obvious propaganda piece came about. A free $40 million dollar movie that only benefits the GOP before an election, stinks of payola or quid pro quo activity to me. I do hope the truth comes out, but it looks like the truth won't come from ABC News, no matter how Jake Tapper attempts to show how ABC News and ABC Entertainment are separate.

If they are so separate the do the investigative reporting on how this mess got started and by whom. (reports on the Internet show some right wing Christian groups are involved - there's a lead for ya Jake) Rather then this "it wasn't us story". Part of the problem Jake, not part of the solution. Sorry. Nice try though.

Jake,

I echo the comments of those posted before and add that fairness is the big issue and ABC is just adding to the irony of its newspeak. Basing a docudrama on the 9/11 Commission Report that, in cases, directly contradicts portions of that report (in some scenes that have been released) is one thing - not mentioning the long, long struggle of the Bush Administration in fighting the Commission's foundation in the first place is another.

Or how about the few members of the Bush team that testified - and how Bush & Cheney had to testify together and not even under oath?

Or the long history of the Clinton folks making terror a top priority from the Anti-Terror Bill of 1996, the disruption of the Millenium plot in 1999, and the missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in attempts to strike at Al-Queda? Put those in contrast to the almost complete inactivity on terror from the Bush folks until the very eve of 9/11.

Balance is not saying both Presidents are to blame: balance is examining the record and showing successes and failures and weighing them as to effect. In the end, a do-nothing administration that ignored reports and took no action (and who failed to act even on the day of the attack) needs to bear the brunt of the responsibility and blame - even if it makes the Disney/ABC folks uncomfortable.

Josh

OK Jake, ABC brags about their "Excellence in Journalism" awards and people trust the network to be accurate. The disclaimer about The Path to 9/11 being entertainment just isn't going to cut it. There are a lot of people who will see it and believe it. ABC has been my favorite network for over 30 years but now that is coming to a screeching halt. ABC is well aware of what is going on, the bias toward the Bush Administration just before the election. I am extremely disappointed in your network's lack of journalistic ethics and will be tuning in to CBS from now on.
ALS

If ABC News is so independent and impartial about "The Path to 9/11" why is it mocking the former Clinton officials who are protesting the film as "Clintonistas"?

Why is ABC so defensive in defending this piece of right-wing garbage?

It is disgraceful and embarrassing to see you justify not taking a stand against flat out dishonest propaganda being aired by the company to work for. If you are not incensed and offended, then it sullies your reputation - if dishonesty and propaganda related to world events isn't something you have a problem with, then you are not to be trusted.

This is a blemish on ABC and Disney and all of its assets. Indeed, DISNEY and ABC co-operate right-wing lie propaganda radio stations coast to coast (WABC in NY, KABC in LA, etc.) And Disney first tried to put Limbaugh on ABC's Monday Night Football as a "sports commentator," then did put him on ESPN.

And Disney refused to distribute Michael Moore's film.

So it is becoming more obvious your outfit - yes, ABC - is just a tool being used by a right-wing propaganda outlet disguised as "The Happiest Place on Earth."

Shame on Disney, shame on ABC. And shame on you for not having the integrity to take a stand.

Don't give in to Clinton and don't back down. Show this miniseries the way you intended originally to show it. You are very up front in saying that it is NOT a documentary so Clinton should just shut up and watch or change the channel. I didn't hear any Democrats complaining when Farenheit 911 was shown AS A DOCUMENTARY! It seems that the double standard is alive and well because Democrats only want free speech for themselves and no one else. DO IT!

The more that is revealed about the developers of this project, the scarier it gets. Here is a growing story on the right-wing players behind this effort and the efforts by ABC to give early access to conservatives in order to pre-cook support.
Mr. Tapper: Any comments on the background of this project? Is any of this alarming to you?

Mr. Tapper:

First, that's a bit condescending to tell people that their time and energy might be better spent in some other way. Actually, if the news media hadn't abdicated its role since 9/11 of holding govt officials of all political parties accountable, the 9/11 commission recommendations probably would have been implemented already. Interesting how ordinary Americans now have had to step in to hold our media AND govt officials accountable ourselves.

Second, it's not a liberal vs conservative argument either (and shame on ABC News for using the term "Clintonista" repeatedly). People of all political viewpoints are standing up for truth in historical works such as this. Please enjoy the following sample of conservative commentators in the last 48 hours courtesy of ThinkProgress.org:

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor:

The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06]

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:

The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06]

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06]

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:

When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06]

Captain’s Quarters blog:

If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06]

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:

Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06]

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show:

I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06]

Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:

If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06]

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:

I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06]

UPDATE:

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:

Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]

A former CIA officer with much counterterrorism experience writes:

======================

Yeah. Right. Of course he/she/it did. And we believe him/her/it because ... ???