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.
"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?
posted by Eric on 09.06.06 at 03:01 PM
Search the Site
Classics To Go
See more archives here
Old (Blogspot) archives
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational
No Biorobots For Japan
The Thorium Solution
Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera
This war of attrition is driving me bananas!
Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry?
Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression?
Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood