|
September 06, 2006
When the truth is known, why supply inaccuracies?
ABC has produced a pre-911 docudrama (using such things as composite characters and incidents which are not technically correct), and predictably, the former Clinton admininistration officials and their supporters are alleging the film is inaccurate. WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 (UPI) -- An upcoming TV mini-series about the origins of the Sept. 11 plot is provoking angry complaints from Democrats about the portrayal of the Clinton administration's response to terrorism.(Via Glenn Reynolds, who astutely notes that it isn't wise for the Democrats to call attention to the film.) Glenn is absolutely right, because no matter how fictionalized the account might be there's no question that there were serious omissions in the operations against bin Laden. Here's Manssor Ijaz in 2001, from the LA Times: In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.Read the whole thing. (And bear in mind that it's just one of many such accounts.) Acccording to this Washington Times report, Berger nixed the capture of bin Laden not once, but four times: According to the September 11 commission's 567-page report, released Thursday, Mr. Berger was told in June 1999 that U.S. intelligence agents were confident about bin Laden's presence in a terrorist training camp called Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan.That's of course the notorious sock stuffing incident, which resulted in Berger's guilty plea. You'd think that if the Clintons were going to do battle with ABC to stop the film, they'd find a better point man. These reports find confirmation in numerous other places, including the New York Sun, and the Washington Post, which has Berger blaming the FBI: "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.The evidence of Clinton administration incompetence (especially Berger's) is so overwhelming that ABC didn't need to fabricate anything. So why produce a "docudrama" of the sort normally associated with the likes of Oliver Stone? I more than share Dean Barnett's concerns about historical inaccuracies. Is there anything wrong with just telling the truth? UPDATE: "The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II." Spare me. posted by Eric on 09.06.06 at 03:01 PM
Comments
Eric- you have this kind of time??? There is soo much stuff on here, you typing this or cutting and pasting? I don't have the time to read it all. And I'm assuming this is the only Eric Scheie I've herad of. I'm starting to find other Scheie's out there...found one in Georgia but his name isn't Eric. Maren · September 6, 2006 10:38 PM Whenever I quote something, (as I did with the three excerpts above), I do so by cutting and pasting, and I always try to make sure I provide a link. What I write is not cut and pasted (except maybe from my brain). And yes, this takes a lot of time. (Too much, I'm afraid.) (You're right that there are a couple of other Eric Scheies out there, but I'm the only one blogging here!) Eric Scheie · September 7, 2006 09:46 AM If I were the producers of this piece, I would ensure that the intitial content would provoke a controversy. Look at all the free publicity it has brought! Dean does make some very good points about "docudramas." However, they should continue to be made since so many need a story to sit still for any exposition. Yet there will remain the tension between the art form of docudramas and the complete and accurate reconstruction of events. Real life is just too slow and unclear for TV! For me, as a potential viewer, I haven't decided whether to devote the time to watching or not. How factual or compromised is the film? I'd have to know everything BEFOREHAND to judge. I will have to read the extensive post-mortums to get to the truth - more time devoted to the subject when I'm already of the informed opinion that the CLinton team dropped the ball big time, just as Democrats in general fumble today. Whitehall · September 7, 2006 08:19 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I think we nned to watch this asap
Pakistan: We Will Capture Bin Laden If He's Found