Fox News to air deleted, false scenes from ABC's The Path to 9/11
According to a January 26 Los Angeles Times article, Fox News will rebroadcast "footage from ABC's controversial miniseries 'The Path to 9/11' that was edited out of the docudrama amid criticism that it inaccurately portrayed the Clinton administration's response to the terrorism threat."
As Media Matters for America documented, The Path to 9/11, the two-part miniseries that aired on ABC on September 10-11, 2006, contained inaccurate scenes that maligned the Clinton administration's counterterrorism efforts and bolstered the Bush administration's. The Path to 9/11 drew sharp criticism from former Clinton administration officials, journalists, and conservatives who noted that significant parts of the "docudrama's" content were not supported by the 9-11 Commission's findings, despite the claims of ABC and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh that the film was largely based on the commission's report.
Fox News, in promoting the January 28 edition of Hannity's America, claimed the program will feature "the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," adding that Clinton "forced ABC to cut out an entire scene," and that Fox News will "expose the clip at the center of the controversy." While Fox News did not identify which "scene" or "clip" it intends to air, the Los Angeles Times reported that Fox News obtained "outtakes" from the film "by taping a public talk that Cyrus Nowrasteh, writer and producer of 'The Path to 9/11,' gave to a World Affairs Council chapter last Friday at Cal State Channel Islands." According to the Times, included in the "outtakes" were two falsified sequences involving Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
ABC reportedly edited the dialogue for a scene from the first part of the miniseries that falsely portrayed Albright defending a purported decision to inform the Pakistani government of a 1998 missile strike against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, despite the criticism of then-CIA director George Tenet, who protested that "the Pakistani security service, the ISI, has close ties with the Taliban." However, a September 11, 2006, Editor & Publisher article noted that even though ABC edited the dialogue, the scene's central falsehood remained -- it "still indicted [Albright] for telling Pakistan about the later missile attack on bid [sic] Laden." The 9-11 Commission report noted that while "[o]fficials in Washington speculated" that the United States may have inadvertently "sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin," it did not assign blame or suggest Albright had any involvement. Albright herself noted the commission's findings in a letter to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC parent Walt Disney Co., in which she disputed the "false and defamatory" scene before it aired, and added that she "supported the strike" and did not "insist[] upon" notifying Pakistan.
Prior to broadcast, ABC also edited out a shot from another scene from the first part of the miniseries in which Berger hangs up on Tenet as the CIA director asks for authorization to let CIA officers and Afghani fighters raid an isolated compound in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms in order to capture or kill bin Laden. While that specific shot was removed from the film, the scene itself still falsely portrayed Berger abandoning an opportunity to capture bin Laden. According to the 9-11 Commission report, Tenet stated that "he alone had decided" to abort the mission weeks before the target date of June 23. The report further noted that both intelligence and military officials had serious doubts about its probability of success. Berger claimed that the scene represented a "total fabrication." Nowrasteh himself acknowledged that the scene was "improvised."
A September 11, 2006, Associated Press article described the many last-minute edits made to the film prior to its debut.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Hannity's America producer John Finley defended Fox News' decision to air the footage:
Finley said the footage merited exposure because the original miniseries provoked such strong debate.
"It was a story that was so controversial at the time," he said.
"We here at Fox -- and myself personally -- feel the American people deserve both sides. We have the opportunity to show the viewers what they missed in September, the full story of the controversy surrounding the scene. We think people should see it and judge for themselves."
The Times also quoted Jay Berger, executive director of the California Central Coast chapter of the World Affairs Council, questioning Fox News' decision: "I can't imagine what the news is here."
Both sides?
There isn't a both sides to this story, there is only the truth of what happened. This isn't an argument.
Par for the course. Much as with their battle with "political correctness" the right sells stuff like this as forbidden fruit. Its easier than supporting their claims.
ABC/Disney better get crackin' on that "cease and desist" letter before FOX uses their copyrighted material. Maybe they can just xerox the one their hack attorney sent to Spocko.
Ohooohhhhh..!!! I get it...both sides of FALSEHOODS...!! Thanks, John, I was mistakenly thinking you were going to show both sides of the TRUTH, which, in this case, would be to air the program (lies) and then NOT air it (truth)...but how would people KNOW that by not showing it, it is a pack of lies...hhmmm....well, you should just show the 'extended cut' series and lead people down the path of confusion and lies yet again...
I think they meant they were talking out of both sides of their mouth, except it is now a well documented fact that they talk out of their poopy chute instead.
Hannity is deplorable.
Doris, I listened to a bit of Hannity's radio show today. His review of the deleted scenes - "Spectacular"- he also explained that the Clintons demanded that any scenes that made them look bad were taken out, and the network caved to their awesome power.
Sans Sannity also played his distorted old tape of Clinton explaining how he tried to get the Saudis (who had the legal standing to do so) to take Bin Laden. The Saudis referred to OBL as a "hot potato".
Hannity has been playing this tape for a long time, and he still thinks(or pretends to think) that Clinton says that OBL was such a hot potato that he tried to get the Saudis to do his work for him. It's a pretty priceless bit of Hannity oblivion.
Almost as good as the other night when he started screeching at the councilman who was not reciting the pledge of Allegiance as a war protest, reading the guy a list of "you liberals do this, you libs do that" before the man mentioned that he was a 45 year Republican.
Hannity's response: "That's not the point"- Whatta maroon!
Maybe Keith Olbermann can counter with 'That's My Bush!' from Comedy Central - The Sitcom the White House Doesn't Want You to See!
That show was frickin' hilarious. Then 9/11 happened and they took it off the air. I think it's time for a return.
Sadly, FOX knows that many of its viewers will take the clips as gospel truth... and you can imagine that Hannity and others will promote the clips as truth. I am firm believer in freedom of speech but, my God, where does this steady stream of Bush administration propaganda stop? Are there no more reasonable standards for truth and accuracy in the media? What concerns me, more than my anger at FOX for doing this, is that we are dangerously approaching the kind of world where lies and apropaganda are the daily televisionfare for most Americans. This goes beyond an alleged liberal bias in reporting. This is outright propaganda maquereding as fact... and it's about a matter that could not be more serious to our nation. This is a truly sad piece to read...
Irony101,
I can't say that you are right with what you say enough times!!
Other than this line that you say: "I am firm believer in freedom of speech but, my God......"
As it pertains to freedom of speech..... you and I and everyone but the most staunch conservative right-winger believes in freedom of speech and then some.......
However, I'm not so sure that by FOX NOISE CHANNEL showing the now known to be dubunked and obvious lies that these deleted scenes are....shouldn't be suppressed by the majority?
My premise for this is that at the time the movie was made and the various people that saw it before it was released to be shown on TV demanded that the most eggregious scenes be removed because they were known to be false or already debunked proves without a doubt that FOX NOISE is nothing but the definition of slime for wanting to show these scenes to their zombie listeners.....
My questions would be: Why bother?
They only hurt themselves in that they lose viewers everyday by simply moving their collective lips, slowly, even their zombie like followers have some brain matter, it is only a matter of time before they begin waking up! Why do they seem to want to constantly shoot themselves in the foot?
The Fox News “HeadOn” Style Product :
“Apply directly to the forehead" repeated very quickly three times, becomes accepted as truth by many unknowing Fox News listeners.
Fox News Lies ....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country....
Fox News, I Can’t Stand Your Product, and I Hate Your Commercials for The Republican’t Party. Fox News is The White House Situation Room.
Bush, Rice and The Rupublican’t Party love Fox News. Why not, look at all the free ads and promos and exclusive friendly interviews.
Fox News is beneath contempt.
What makes this doubly reprehensible is that the Clinton Administration actually worked hard and valiantly to combat terrorism where as the Bush team have been proven utterly inept,vindictive and greed driven.
absolutely
bush, condi, ashcroft, all the people who were supposed to be paying attention, were not. it's all very clear in the 9-11 report. ashcroft and condi did nothing about the warnings they received in july 2001. how about an actual quote from bush? he told bob woodward that he was "not on point" about bin ladin prior to 9-11. abc could have shown a real scene, when a cia briefer went to crawford to see bush and stress the importance of the august 6 presidential daily briefing "bin ladin determined to strike inside the u.s.". bush dismissed him with the words: "you've covered your ass now." instead they had to create fake scenes. the writer of this propaganda, mentioned above, cyrus nowrasteh, told frontpage mag.com that he had to do his own research because the 9-11 report "only goes back to 1998". a total lie and absurd on the face of it. his "research" was apparently limited to right wing misinformation. notice also that fox calls this a "video", as if it was something filmed at the time. this only confirms what clinton told chris wallace. fox is biased against him. what else could you conclude?
just watching fox news sunday. the usual. chris wallace interviewed joe lieberman. joe criticized pelosi and reid for not supporting bush's call for a "bipartisan council on the war on terror". ummm, since when has the "educator", the "decider", listened to anyone beside himself. it's just another dog and pony show like the baker commission, and let's not forget the hart rudman commission on counterterrorism. appointed jointly by clinton and gingrich, it produced a lengthy detailed report of recommendations that was handed to bush when he came into office. he, literally, threw it in the trash and said cheney would be in charge of a committee on terrorism, which we know never met. then brit hume called gop senator chuck hagel "sad". couldn't be any sadder than brit. at least hagel has been correct in a lot of his criticisms of this war. then bill kristol noted john kerry called america more isolated than he had ever seen it. which is true, but kristol turned that into kerry calling this country "an international pariah". then they turned to the libby trial. brit of course, said that fitzgerald should have dropped the case when he found out "who the original leaker was". no mention from brit of the fact that libby and rove were actively involved in leaking her classified identity to reporters before novak's column, or the fact that libby tried to get judith miller of the n y times to hid his connection to the white house when he gave her plame's identity. i mean, their plan worked. they all kept giving her name to reporters and the traitor novak printed it. and the fox twins threw out the "he just forgot" excuse for libby.of course, novak's column was within a month of every conversation and when that hit the news, libby had to have been going over who he said what to and when. and best for last. kristol continued in his flight from reality by saying that fitzgerald indicted libby "because he was a supporter of the war". in that case the entire white house would have been indicted. it was just poor brave scooter who supported the war. absurd.
almost forgot. chris wallace keeps introducing kristol as a columnist for the weekly standard. he does not point out that he is also now a columnist for time magazine, which more people would tend to know. my educted guess on why they don't say it? because it doesn't fit in with their contention that mainstream media is all liberal.
educated
Oh please.
Clinton had 13 shots at getting Bin Laden. 0 for 13.
Yes, he didn't have nearly the success Bush has had getting OBL.
FOX logic...
FOX: Bill Clinton had a sex chnage operation.
Clinton: That is an absolute falsehood. I have never had a sex change operation.
FOX: Everyone knows what a liar Bill Clinton is, so he's obviously lying about not having a sex change operation. Jeeez... Can you believe how rotten the Democrat Party is?
Some channel should air "Loose Change" to counter the Path to 9/11.
Loose Change
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut
Problem is, the Corporate Media Oligopoly has no interest in promoting the opposition (that is, all the people who aren't board members, or otherwise multimillionaires living on inherited wealth and position - US!) We really need to begin to counter-attack the Corporations as a whole, the very concept of an entity that we, the people, cannot send to jail for breaking our laws.
One device specific to MSM is the Media Ownership Reform Act, MORA, which should be re-introduced this year. MORA is better than any version of the "Fairness Doctrine", and not subjective in application. No more whines about the "liberal bias" of a most UN-liberal source of lies and self-promotion: by limiting the reach of any owner, and multiplying massively the number (thus, the diversity) of owners, there need be little discussion of potential bias in content. "Freedom of the Press" might once more become possible, if not automatically assured.
Of course, MSM is only the beginning: RedKing would blanche at the rending of Corporations of all types proposed in MY fantasies.
plz no, countering a made-up piece of propaganda by ludicrous, already debunked conspiracy theories is not gonna help anything...
ABC and the others will continue to subvert the popular consciousness with disinformation. Hey guys, guess what? You all have lost the propaganda wars: you don't have the numbers and you don't have the venues. All you can do is sit at your computers night after night, the usual suspects venting on one little website after another and maybe go attend a "Peace rally" once in awhile, but it's no use. The corporate media will continue to concoct, omit, distort, insinuate, suppress, tell half-truths and outright lie about the Progressives and Liberals and until you all get off your arses and take the protests to the front doors of the major news outlets and shut them down in protest for their falsehoods and propaganda, not a whole lot will change. Why march on Washinton when the power resides in the boardrooms of the "thinktanks", CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and FOX?
Sean Hannity is like all the on-air hosts at Fox News. They look for anything that will once again drag former President Bill Clinton into view. For years, Hannity, O'Reilly and others at Fox News have been trying to somehow pin the 9/11 attack on the Clinton administration and what they assume is their failure to get Usama bin Laden. Airing scenes from the 9/11 movie is just another way for Sean Hannity to try and smear Bill Clinton.
The Republicans have created a govt within a govt...a military within the military...Read about "Blackwater" on the only TV news channels where they'll report the real news: LINK-TV & Free Speech TV."Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared SurgeOn Tuesday, five employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA were killed in a violent Baghdad neighborhood. Hours later, President Bush used his State of the Union address to call on what some are calling an undeclared surge of private mercenaries in Iraq. We speak with Jeremy Scahill, author of the forthcoming “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.”http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232
Do tell. Please tell us more of what you know about "Blackwater"...
see the link he provided? if you click on that....
The article was just a recap of the accident. With a touch of tin foil hat conspiracy I might add. Here is a better link:
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=108106&ran=202193
This has been going on since 1946 by the way. Same game, names have changed.
"Hannity's America" has a nice ring doesn't it?
Like "Hitler's Germany".or "Stalin's USSR", or "Pol Pot's Cambodia", or "Augusto Pinochet's Argentina", or .......
I could do this all day. =P
Pinochet was Chile, Peron (et. al.) was Argentina. Let's see, Noriega was Panama, Ortega was (is?) Nicaragua, the Shah (Pahlavi) was Iran, VanThieu and CaoKy were Vietnam...etc, ad Nauseum. Some were CIA puppets and some were not, otherwise pretty much the same.
I read reports that Rupert Murdoch is attempting to buy the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times. The results of such outcome would be disastrous to public opinion.
actually, the chicago tribune is pretty conservative anyway. and the los angeles times fired liberal columnist frank rich about a year ago. and just about a week ago they ran an op-ed by some right winger named dinesh d'souza. it was all about how liberals caused 9-11 and clinton did nothing to stop it. among the total lies he told was that clinton "did little" about the first world trade center bombing in 93. he is unaware or lying because all the people behind that were arrested and convicted by the clinton justice dept. but you're correct about the concentration of power in the media.
Actually...
Mefirst posted:
"he is unaware or lying because all the people behind that were arrested and convicted by the clinton justice dept."
It was actually the PNP (Philippine Police) and a turncoat (Abdul Murad) that were responsible for the arrest of Yousef. Madam Reno had absolutely nothing to do with it.
So, Hog... if, for example, Bush does not bring Osama Bin Laden to justice on his watch then it's not Bush's fault, but if under Clinton's watch a terrorist is brought to justice then his administration doesn't get any credit for that. Is that how it works?
oh my, who to believe? hogprint or the 9-11 commission? let's see what the 9-11 report, with a republican led staff and signed by 5 republican members, has to say [page 72]: "second, the fbi and the justice dept did excellent work investigating the bombings...the fbi arrested him there [jersey city] on march 4 1993. in short order the bureau had several plotters in custody, including nidal ayyad, an engineer who had acquired chemicals for the bomb, and mahmoud abouhalima, who had helped mix the chemicals." "disrupting this 'landmarks plot', the fbi in june 1993 arrested rahman and various confederates [in brooklyn]."
and yousef was captured in pakistan with help from information from the filipino police. but page 71: "clinton ordered his national security council to coordinate the response. government agencies swung into action to find the culprits. the counterterrorist center located at the cia combed it's files and queried sources around the world." that really doesn't seem to fit the description of "did little" as mr. d'souza claimed.
Ms. Mylroie doesn't agree with your assessment:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
Read those first segments carefully. It was that template that allowed the OBL's to grow more emboldened and brazen in their attacks.
LOL...Laurie Mylroie also claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing was an Iraqi plot. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
Dismissed.
Dismissed? You missed the point of course. I'll narrow it down to put it in context for you:
"
While these are reasonable questions, they reveal a lack of understanding about how the U.S. government works when legal and national security issues of this special sort overlap. A high wall, in fact, stands between the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on the one hand, and the national security agencies on the other. Once arrests are made, the trials of individual perpetrators take bureaucratic precedence over everything else. The Justice Department inherits primary investigatory jurisdiction, and the business of the Justice Department is above all the prosecution and conviction of individual criminals. Once that process is underway, the Justice Department typically denies information to the national security bureaucracies, taking the position that passing on information might "taint the evidence" and affect prospects for obtaining convictions. [3]
In effect, the Justice Department puts the prosecution of individual perpetrators--with all the rights to a fair trial guaranteed by the U.S. judicial system--above America's national security interest in determining who may be behind terrorist attacks. Questions of state sponsorship that are of pressing interest to national security agencies are typically relegated to a distant second place, or never properly addressed at all, because the national security agencies are denied critical information. In particular, whenever early arrests are made regarding a terrorist incident on American soil, the U.S. government cannot properly address both the national security question of state sponsorship and the criminal question of the guilt or innocence of individual perpetrators at the same time.
This is precisely what happened in the World Trade Center bombing."
I was not trying to make the link between Yousef and Iraq. That would be a beef you could take up with Mylroie. She is CORRECT in her assessment of the "wall" and how the Clinton administration approached this matter and later attacks on US interest on foreign soil. That is the context of the post that I was replying to.
My point is one of credibility. Ms. Mylroie makes a claim of a "wall" in order to support her assertion that Iraq was tied to the earlier WTC bombing. The 9-11 commission makes a contradictory claim. Which am I to believe? Hmm....
I see no downside here.
Meaning this is just another step in Fox admitting they are nothing more than a Republican propaganda machine.
Sure, their nursing home/Ann Coulteresque demographic will watch it, but everybody else in America will not.
What with Bush in the process of destroying the Republican party (him destroying America is a foregone conclusion)--and the Democrats now possessing the legislative branch of government--it comes across as an act of desperation to show false scenes edited from an already bad movie.
That Fox is hellbent to kiss a president's arse who is loathed by almost 75% of the country is good for our vast majority, bad for their tiny minority.
While everyone is watching "The Path to 9/11", they will be missing the truly amazing story that Gerald Ford is still alive. You can learn more at www.gerryfordhoax.cabanova.com.
The Fox News “HeadOn” Style Product :
“Apply directly to the forehead" repeated very quickly three times, becomes accepted as truth by many unknowing Fox News listeners.
Fox News Lies ....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country.....
Apply Directly to the Country....
Fox News, I Can’t Stand Your Product, and I Hate Your Commercials for The Republican’t Party. Fox News is The White House Situation Room.
Bush, Rice and The Rupublican’t Party love Fox News. Why not, look at all the free ads and promos and exclusive friendly interviews.
Should have had Sandy "sloppy moment" Berger stuff that footage in his other sock.
Sock? I thought it was his pants. Which is it?
Please explain any jokes based entirely on info. from Rush Limbaugh.
Probably both:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20070111-084553-9496r.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_1038bergerpants
Click on this, to see the "Blackwater" interview on Democracy NOW! TV news, non-corporate funded news, no govt money...just donors like you and me. The corporate media is corporate America's view, not OUR view, on things.http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/jan/video/dnB20070126a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=9:30
You need psychiatric help.
A condensed history of propoganda in America, please read. Corporate America saw how propoganda was used by our govt to rally us into WWI, and started a decades-long campaing to use it for THEIR own uses...like the Iraq War.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/Manufacture_Consent_IYLTP.html
[link to play.rbn.com]