Selective Outrage

Like one of Charles’ readers, I am also on the mailing list of Tom McMahon, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee. I never asked to be on it, but I am nonetheless. It’s given me a few laughs, one of which I shared with you fine folks last month, but mainly it’s been a mild irritation.

This letter, though, really left an impression on me.

So, based on early reports (and not actual airings), Mr. McMahon wants to engage in prior restraint and keep ABC from airing this program? Because it has several “dramatic recreations” and uses “dramatic license” on certain key events? Why, in that case, how DARE they label it a documentary?

Oh, that’s right, they’re not. They’re calling it a “docudrama,” meaning it blends elements of both and should NOT be mistaken as a true documentary.

And don’t even get me started on Mr. McMahon’s citation of Sandy “the pants burglar” Berger as an authority on what happened. On second thought, maybe we should give him that credibility. After all, the documents that Berger — Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor — pleaded guilty to stealing from the National Archives and destroying very well might have corroborated his account of events. Pity we’ll never know for sure.

Considering Mr. McMahon’s outrage over this production, I would be intensely curious to hear his opinion on Michael Moore’s magnum opus, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” You know the one — the “documentary” where Moore misrepresented facts, misled participants, jumbled his history, and out-and-out lied to present “his vision” of that terrible day. (See this analysis of the film for starters.)

On second thought, I don’t think I need to hear his opinion. I think I can guess what it is readily enough — the party which he directs put Michael Moore right next to former president Jimmy Carter at their last national convention, and top leaders of his party attended the film’s premiere and had words of praise for it.

For the record, I’ll most likely watch and record the ABC special. But unlike the sheep Mr. McMahon is apparently used to dealing with, I won’t mistake it for a 100%-accurate depiction of reality.

But I’ll bet dollars to donuts that it’ll be a hell of a lot closer to truth than Michael Moore’s fraud.

(Full text below the fold)

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Does a major national broadcast network want to stain itself by presenting an irresponsible, slanderous, fraudulent, “docu-drama” to the American public?

Not if you and I have the last word — but either way, we’re about to find out.

The ABC television network — a cog in the Walt Disney empire — unleashed a promotional blitz in the last week for a new “docudrama” called “The Path to 9/11”. ABC has thrown its corporate might behind the two-night production, and bills it as a public service: a TV event, to quote the ABC tagline, “based on the 9/11 Commission Report”.

That’s false. “The Path to 9/11” is actually a bald-faced attempt to slander Democrats and revise history right before Americans vote in a major election.

The miniseries, which was put together by right-wing conservative writers, relies on the old GOP playbook of using terrorism to scare Americans. “The Path to 9/11” mocks the truth and dishonors the memory of 9/11 victims to serve a cheap, callous political agenda. It irresponsibly misrepresents the facts and completely distorts the truth.

ABC/Disney executives need to hear from the public and understand that their abuse of the public trust comes with a cost. Tell Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger to keep this right-wing propaganda off the air — we’ll deliver your message:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

This story is breaking quickly. The bias of the “docudrama” only became known when ABC began circulating previews recently. Less than two weeks ago, 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste confronted a lead writer of “The Path to 9/11” after watching the first half of the miniseries at a screening, but most of what we know amounts to bits and pieces because ABC chose to screen the miniseries to conservative bloggers and right-wing media outlets exclusively. Almost none of the Democrats portrayed in the film have even been asked for their thoughts.

But we still know enough, thanks to news accounts and crack research, to fact check “The Path to 9/11” as a biased, irresponsible mess. Here’s what you need to know:

Richard Clarke — the counterterrorism czar for the Clinton administration, now himself a consultant to ABC News — describes a key scene in “The Path to 9/11” as “180 degrees from what happened.” In the scene, a CIA field agent places a phone call to get the go ahead to kill Osama Bin Laden, then in his sights, only to have a senior Clinton administration official refuse and hang up the phone. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security Advisor, called the same scene “a total fabrication. It did not happen.” And Roger Cressey, a top Bush and Clinton counterterrorism official, said it was “something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful.”
Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder — contrary to “The Path to 9/11” — rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times.
The former National Security Council head of counterterrorism says that President Clinton “approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda,” and the 9/11 report says the CIA had full authority from President Clinton to strike Bin Laden. Yet chief “Path to 9/11” scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh, a friend of Rush Limbaugh, says the miniseries shows how President Clinton had “frequent opportunities in the ’90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks — but lacked the will to do so.”
ABC asked only the Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean, Sr., to advise the makers of “The Path to 9/11”. The producers optioned two books, one written by a Bush administration political appointee, as the basis of the screenplay — yet bill the miniseries as “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.”
This is a picture of bias — a conservative attempt to rewrite the history of September 11 to blame Democrats, just in time for the election.

Tell Walt Disney president Robert Iger that you hold his company responsible — and that this community demands that ABC tell the truth:

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

ABC is trying to use of the airwaves — airwaves owned by you and me, and loaned to broadcasters as a public trust — to slander Democrats and sell a slanderous, irresponsible fraud to the American people, and they’re shamefully doing it just weeks away from Election Day.

The Walt Disney Corporation could have given Americans an honest look at September 11. Instead, the company abandoned its duty to the truth — and embraced the fiction known as “The Path to 9/11.”

But ABC isn’t the only company pushing this gross revision of history. ABC has enlisted the reputable education and children’s entertainment company Scholastic, Inc. to send 100,000 letters to high school teachers, urging them to show students “The Path to 9/11”. Scholastic has also created a discussion guide for teachers to use to encourage students and their families to watch this irresponsible fraud and then discuss it in school. The discussion guide does not in any way point out the concerns and criticisms that have been raised about the validity and accuracy of the film.

We’ve got to stop this now.

ABC/Disney must face an accountability moment. You can ratchet up the pressure on ABC by sending your own letter to Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger — tell him to keep this propaganda off their air.

http://www.democrats.org/pathto911

We’ll keep you up to date as this story evolves.

Thank you,
Tom

Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

Will ABC Broadcast "The Path to 9/11" or Will it Succumb to Democratic Pressure?
Where is Airforce Major Jill Metzger? (Discussion Continued)

27 Comments

  1. SCSIwuzzy September 7, 2006
  2. Big Al September 7, 2006
  3. [email protected] September 7, 2006
  4. Laura September 7, 2006
  5. [email protected] September 7, 2006
  6. Momof 3 September 7, 2006
  7. Lurking Observer September 7, 2006
  8. GuyFromOhio September 7, 2006
  9. Jeff Moses September 7, 2006
  10. Brian September 7, 2006
  11. [email protected] September 7, 2006
  12. P. Bunyan September 7, 2006
  13. GuyFromOhio September 7, 2006
  14. [email protected] September 7, 2006
  15. S. Harrington September 7, 2006
  16. Brian September 7, 2006
  17. GuyFromOhio September 7, 2006
  18. Momof 3 September 7, 2006
  19. Les Nessman September 7, 2006
  20. RepublicansAreIckyBadThings September 7, 2006
  21. LissaKay September 7, 2006
  22. James Cloninger September 7, 2006
  23. James Cloninger September 7, 2006
  24. James Cloninger September 7, 2006
  25. MikeSC September 7, 2006
  26. GuyFromOhio September 8, 2006
  27. MikeSC September 8, 2006