The “Path To 9-11″ Didn’t Start With Clinton
September 8th, 2006 | by Ken Grandlund |Despite reputed claims in the soon-to-be aired ABC docudrama “The Path to 9-11,” America’s problems in the Middle East didn’t begin with the Clinton Administration or the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The real trouble began much earlier, during the first Bush administration with the basing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990. In fact, it was this action that initially drove Osama bin Laden to form the terror group now known as al-Qaeda.
These facts are not in dispute, but if you only go by what the right-wing fearmongers and propaganda machine wants you to hear, you might not ever know the truth.
ABC and their republican script writers are engaging in nothing less than an attempt to skew the historical record, and worse, influence American elections by presenting a false picture to American voters. And they probably would have gotten away with it if not for the voices of members of the 9-11 Commission who have rightly criticized the film’s attempt to distort the historical record.
9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick:
“I do have a problem if you make claims that the program is based upon the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report when the actors, scenes and statements in the series are not found in — and, indeed, are contradicted by — our findings.”
9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste:
Some scenes in the film “complete fiction. … The mischaracterizations tended to support the notion that the president [Clinton] was not attentive to anti-terrorism concerns. That was the opposite from what the 9/11 commission found.” [Link]
ABC may claim that their categorization of the work as a ‘docudrama’ means that it’s okay to bend the truth in the name of ‘historically inspired entertainment’ but it’s not okay, especially when the goal of the film is to denigrate the actions of one political party in favor of another, particularly when the party who could benefit from viewer confusion has done little to make ours a safer world itself.
“The Path to 9-11″ would be better titled “The Path of Deceit to Obscure a Failed Political Ideology by Twisting the Historical Record.”
[tag]Path+To+9-11, ABC, 9-11, propaganda, television, history[/tag]
10 Responses to “The “Path To 9-11″ Didn’t Start With Clinton”
By CoolDragonDude on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
ABC is starting to feel the heat. Keep up the e-mails of protest. If you need a little comic relief Assimilated Press has a great report ABC Feeds off Bones of Dead
By windspike on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
The ministry of disinformation is alive and well in the GOP. Since when did they trade their values to become more like their old nemisis: “The Pinko Commies?”
By landcomm1 on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
The House of Bush may be the most criminal in the history of our nation. It needs to be dropped like a house of cards come November.
By ShyOne on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
I think Disney should show what they’ve made and take full responsibility for however it turns out. This madness of a few people making Disney “change” it, before it is even shown, sounds like something out of Moscow in 1962. Bubba and his gang are just as good at tap dancing as Dubya and his; let’s see and hear all this “after” the show. OK? I thought we lived in the USA, not the USSR. Let’s roll it.
By Greg on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
You are truly ignorant. This War isn’t because we freed Kuwait from Iraq and had some airman and soldiers stay in Kuwait, the UAE and Saudi. Nor is it because we support Israel. It is because we have been successful for the last 230 years and the Muslim world largely is has not been for the last 500. The US and Israel (a sliver of land with no resources at all) are merely scapegoats that the leaders, wether Baathist types or Muslim extremists use to divert attention from their own self serving efforts and corruption. If they didn’t blame a powerful, different outsider they would have to answer their peoples questions and be found wanting. Get real, the history is bigger and longer than 15 years. No one blames Clinton for the problem, but he didn’t seem to get it. For that matter, no one really did. GW just happened to be the man who was in the chair when it happened. I hope that Clinton or Gore would have reacted somewhat similiarly, but they had 3 major chances and did little but put roadblocks up to the sharing of information that might have prevented 9/11. One of your quotes comes from the lady who wrote that policy for the Clinton administration.
Greg
By ken grandlund on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
No Greg, it is not me who is ignorant, it is those who are trying to pass this film off as difinitive facts. I certainly realize that our trouble in the Middle East reaches much farther back than just the first Bush administration, but the trouble with bin Laden does begin there, and if he is to be the one who orchestrated 9-11, let the film show the real reason why he was angered at the US.
Your claim that Clinton/Gore did little to combat the threat posed by bin Laden shows that you are buying the neo-coon line much more than you think, since the congressional record can be found to show that they were doing many things to fend off terror, short of attacking countries that had no stake in that particular fight.
Our problems in the Middle East date back to the early days of Big Oil, and more recently to the 1950’s where we propped up puppet governments like the former Shah of Iran.
No Greg, I’m not confused, but you seem to be trying to confuse the issue at hand which is the film produced by ABC that distorts the most current flare up in the ongoing problems between the US and the Middle East.
Nice try though.
By steve on Sep 8, 2006 | Reply
” buying the neo-coon line”
Whoa!! What a typo, Ken… or was it?
And that’s how easy it is Ken. Truth is in the eye of the beholder!
If Clinton had nothing to hide why scream and holler about it? If it is not true then why not ignore it. After all, this is the man who said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” when he in fact, did have an “inappropriate” relationship. The one time the media isn’t the “friend of the Democratic Party” is when all hell breaks loose. They are even criticizing the show’s quality and camera work! What the fuck does that have to do with Clinton?
To me, I look at the track record and conduct. It’s kinda like these runners and bicyclists who run out and make a flat denial of a steroid allegation and yet still can’t pass a test out of it.
By tos on Sep 9, 2006 | Reply
Also this miniseries isn’t putting Bush in the best light either. But of course they’ll believe it if it’s against Bush no matter what. All it is showing in this show is the missed opportunites to get Bin Laden not blaming Clinton for Bin Laden specifically. Here is an article stating that. Note the author.:
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
By Lily on Sep 13, 2006 | Reply
Everyone should just calm down and quit blaming either Bush Sr. or Dubya OR Clinton. Jihadists have been in their torture and murder business for hundreds of years, long before any of us walked this land. The only reason we are so very aware of events as they unfold seconds earlier is because of the global communication capabilities of today. Muslims used to stick their victims’ heads (men, women, children, babies) on pikes in roadways. Now, all they have to do is round up a journalist and the vicious deed is transmitted worldwide in seconds. Do your homework, research history, get your stories straight, and stop with the hatred. We have enough of that to contend with from the enemy.