CLINTON to ABC: It’s Malice, Baby

CLINTON to ABC: It's Malice, Baby

UPDATE V (12:40 p.m.): Here's the MSNBC interview with Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell. Stay tuned – I'll update during the day.

UPDATE IV (12:01 p.m.) ABC's statement is here. … It says they will not change the documentary. They admit it is fiction. ABC also said that they are not finished with the fictional account of 9/11. In addition, Clinton supposedly will not back down until the entire project is pulled. The gloves are off.

UPDATE I – III (compiled 10:48 a.m. and earlier): Clinton's spokesperson Jay Carson has released a statement. We're still waiting on ABC's announcment regarding “Path to 9/11″. 9/11 families weigh in (h/t).

“… In other words, we said to Osama bin Laden we think getting rid of Saddam Hussein is seven times more important than dealing with of you. – President Bill Clinton

President Clinton strikes back.

As I stipulated yesterday, if it's intended to harm and prejudice, ignoring
all facts, you've just got to do it. According to ABC, aka GOP-TV, they are portraying the “essence of truth”.

Excuse me? The “essence of truth” is THE TRUTH.

Sue 'em, Bill.

Part of “Path to 9/11″ stipulates that Clinton was too busy fighting
the Monica charges, so he didn't pay attention to terrorism. It's rubbish.

In
fact, I wrote about the blue dress drama way back in the 1990s many times, specifically
stating that the people who were most at fault for taking their eyes off terrorism
were the Republicans in Congress who insisted on impeachment over an affair instead
of doing the people's business. The name of the article (almost 5 years before
I went to blogging) was entitled What
Monica Cost. A blast to the past, yes, but a good reminder of reality in
the face of ABC's fictional GOP-TV.

Via
Greg Sargent, we get the full letter of what I linked to earlier this morning,
which was printed
in part in the New York Post. Don't stand too close to your screen on this
one. Bruce is breathing fire.

September 1, 2006 Dear Bob, As you know, ABC intends to air a two part miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which purports to document the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ABC claims that the show is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and, as Steve McPherson, President of ABC Entertainment, has said: “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.” By ABC’s own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known. Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama’s writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, “I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn’t want them to stymie my efforts.” Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors: – The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.” In addition, ABC’s own counter-terrorism consultant, Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie: 1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden; 2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see bin Laden; and 3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single-sourced and there would be no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it. As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA’s Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option. – The drama claims that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of the military. Again, this is false. – Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat.” While these are three examples that we are aware of that are utterly baseless, they are clearly indicative of other errors in the substance and bent of the film. Indeed, the overall tone in the advertisements we’ve seen for this drama suggest that President Clinton was inattentive to the threat of terrorism or insufficiently intent upon eliminating the threat from bin Laden. Note that the 9/11 Commission Report says: – We believe that both President Clinton and President Bush were genuinely concerned about the danger posed by al Qaeda.” (p. 349) – “By May 1998 … clearly, President Clinton’s concern about terrorism had steadily risen.” (p. 102) – “President Clinton was deeply concerned about bin Laden. He and his national security advisor, Samuel ‘Sandy’ Berger, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden’s reported location.” (p. 175) – “President Clinton spoke of terrorism in numerous public statements. In his August 5, 1996, remarks at George Washington University, he called terrorism ‘the enemy of our generation.’” (p. 500) We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike. Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh’s bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz’s conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said: “The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response – or lack of response – to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.” But as Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission: “[T]o go to war, a president needs to be able to say that his senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have concluded who is responsible.” And as the 9/11 Commission report repeatedly acknowledges, the US did not have clear evidence of bin Laden’s connection to the attack on the USS Cole before the end of the Clinton Administration (p. 192, 193, 195 & executive summary). While ABC is promoting “The Path to 9/11″ as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans. Given your stated obligation to “get it right,” we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film. Sincerely, Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton Cc: Ms. Madeleine K. Albright Mr. Samuel R. Berger Mr. Richard A. Clarke Mr. Stephen McPherson Mr. George J. Mitchell Mr. John D. Podesta Mr. David Westin National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States

Consider me signed on, too.

For laughs, here's ABC's disclaimer.

The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression. (TPM)