Wednesday, September 06, 2006

9/11 "Docudrama" Downgraded to "D'ohdrama"

Because more and more we're hearing about how horribly fictional The Path to 9/11 is.

Now, a top expert and adviser to Clinton and Bush II, Roger Cressey, adds another fictionalization to the list (via TPMCafe). In addition to the big stuff being wrong, such as how the CIA had bin Laden surrounded and were told to back off by Clinton himself, the little stuff is wrong, too.
They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no.
There was comment at ThinkProgress from someone who said that this docdrama is not too important, since most people have made up their minds about who's to blame for 9/11, anyway.

Nice attitude. People are disseminating lies that other people already believe to be lies, so just help enshrine those lies into the national consciousness by putting it on film with actors like Harvey Keitel.

In fact, right after claiming the docdrama is "straight out of Disney and fantasyland," Cressey had to smack down the very next thing Joe Scarborough spouted, which is "common knowledge" amongst wingnuts.
SCARBOROUGH: But at the same time, doesn’t history show that Bill Clinton had several opportunities to go after bin Laden, but the President and his cabinet were afraid to do so because they may offend some people in the Arab world?
CRESSY: Actually, Joe, that had nothing to do with it. If you read the
9/11 Commission report, it makes it very clear. In most of those cases, George Tenet, the Director of the CIA, said because there was single source intelligence it was his recommendation to the President not to take the shot. There was never a case where we had a clear shot at Bin Laden and the decision to take it wasn’t made.

Here's why it's important to not let this dreck be aired, or if we can't get ABC to drop it, why it has to be challenged openly and widely:

When I went to visit my parents in Cheyenne last weekend, my mom and I took the kids to a park near downtown with a train in it. I'd passed by that park many times but had never been there. When I mentioned that to my mom, she said, "Yes you have. Remember, it was when Ben bonded with Joe [his cousin]." I told her that I remember that happening, but I hadn't been there, I'd been on a date with my husband while my parents watched the boy. She had recorded it on videotape, and isn't it funny how memory can be tricked.

When I got home and told my husband (who'd had to stay home for work) about my weekend, I mentioned that story. Before I got to the part about it being on videotape, he said, "You've been there before, with Ben when he was toddler." I laughed and reminded him that we had seen that on videotape because we'd been on a date, and isn't it funny how memory can be tricked.

So now we're going to have a movie that portrays:
  • bin Laden having been surrounded by CIA and U.S. military when CIA and U.S. military weren't even in Afghanistan,

  • John O'Neil being unable to get Mohammed Atta's name from the CIA because of a "wall" between CIA and FBI that didn't even exist,

  • the "liberal" Washington Post (think "media in general") being blamed for leaking information about the U.S. listening in on bin Laden's phonecalls, leading to bin Laden no longer using phones, when it was actually the "conservative" Washington Times (Moonie Times) that did it, and even they weren't responsible for bin Laden not using the phone, as he had already stopped using it after an attack on his training camps in Afghanistan,

  • that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructed Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks,

  • probably, since the film seems to be made up of "things Cyrus Nowsrateh believes about history because he reads right-wing blogs," that Clinton did nothing about the U.S.S. Cole,

  • that Condi Rice and President Bush were "very concerned" (heard it on radio, no link) about the PDA entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to strike in U.S.," even though Bush's initial reaction to a plane flying into a building was "what a bad pilot," his subsequent glazed-over look when informed a few minutes later, "America is under attack," and Rice's testimony before Congress that the memo was just a "historical document" which no one took too seriously.

That's all we know about so far, because the filmmakers used up all their copies of the movie sending to right-wing bloggers and media outlets. They wouldn't even send a copy to President Clinton, Madeleine Albright or Sandy Berger.

And considering they published a companion "discussion guide" for high school students - apparently making the movie required viewing - which is incredibly skewed wingnut propaganda that Cyrus Nowsrateh got from reading RWNJ blogs, it's of utmost importance to attack the totality of this dreck.

Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next