Hannity still defending deeply flawed Path to 9/11 miniseries -- "It did get it right"
On the July 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity and Cyrus Nowrasteh, writer and producer of the September 2006 ABC miniseries The Path to 9/11, alleged that "political pressure" is preventing the release of the miniseries on DVD, then defended the film's accuracy, claiming that it was "vindicated by the experts," contained "meticulous detail," and "got it right." As Media Matters for America documented, however, The Path to 9/11 contained inaccurate scenes that maligned the Clinton administration's counterterrorism efforts and bolstered the Bush administration's. Additionally, the film was sharply criticized by 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 fact that ABC originally claimed that the miniseries was based on the commission's report (a claim the network later minimized).
As Media Matters noted, the January 28 edition of Hannity's America featured deleted footage from a scene from The Path to 9/11 that ABC edited prior to broadcast. The unedited scene, which Fox News promoted as "the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," falsely portrayed then-national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger hanging up on CIA director George Tenet as he asks for authorization to let CIA officers and Afghani fighters raid an isolated compound in Afghanistan in order to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Even though the shot of Berger hanging up was edited out, the scene as aired on ABC was still inaccurate. The 9-11 Commission report noted that Tenet stated that "he alone had decided" to abort the mission on May 29, 1998 -- weeks before the target date of June 23 -- and that both intelligence and military officials had serious doubts about the likelihood of its success. The report also noted that the operation had been planned out and rehearsed, but it gave no indication that CIA or Afghani personnel were in position and ready to conduct the operation when it was canceled. Nowrasteh defended the unedited scene as accurate -- claiming that the pressure to edit the film "was just an attempt to sort of suppress history" -- despite having previously admitted the scene was fabricated. The New York Times quoted Nowrasteh as saying that "Berger did not slam down the phone. That is not in the report. That was not scripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place."
On the July 1 edition of Hannity's America, Hannity again aired footage from this scene and asked Nowrasteh if he "believe[d] political pressure was brought to bear on the issue of releasing the DVD," to which Nowrasteh replied: "Absolutely." Nowrasteh claimed that "it came from the same people who were putting on the political pressure last fall -- primarily the Clintons, Sandy Berger," and faulted ABC for not "[s]tand[ing] up for their talent and their good work that has been vindicated by the experts." Hannity credited Nowrasteh for the "meticulous detail" in the film, adding, "in particular you wanted accuracy from the very beginning."
According to the Nexis database, an article from the June 25-July 8 edition of Variety noted that Nowrasteh claimed that "all of us associated with the production have noticed that there are no Emmy ads [for the miniseries] and no support [for the DVD] and it's mainly because of all the controversy that took place." According to Variety:
ABC, which does not always release miniseries on DVD, denies that its Emmy campaign for the project, or lack thereof, is an outgrowth of the controversy that originally plagued the pic. An ABC rep says "with limited budget the studio traditionally does not send any of their product out in the Academy mailing and runs limited advertisements for a few productions."
Nowrasteh added: "The Path to 9/11 got it right," to which Hannity responded: "You know what, Cyrus? It did get it right."
From the July 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: Now, nine months after The Path to 9/11 originally aired on ABC, there is a new controversy. ABC's parent company, Walt Disney, has yet to release the DVD documentary to the public. So many are asking: Is the Mickey Mouse corporation once again bowing to the Clinton political machine? And that's the question I asked the producer of The Path to 9/11, Cyrus Nowrasteh.
NOWRASTEH: Here's what I know, Sean. It was supposed to be out in January. And then I was told six months down the line, "Well, that's where we are now." And there's no indication that it's coming out at all.
HANNITY: Do you believe political pressure was brought to bear on the issue of releasing the DVD?
NOWRASTEH: Absolutely.
HANNITY: Where do you think it came from?
NOWRASTEH: Well, it came from the same people who were bringing the political pressure last fall -- primarily the Clintons, Sandy Berger. I mean, Jeff Gerth covers this in his book, Her Way, the book that is just out. He talks about the incredible, unprecedented pressure that was brought to bear on Disney, and I think they showed a lot of backbone by airing the movie last fall under that pressure. And I think they need to maintain that stance. Stand up for their talent and their good work that has been vindicated by the experts, and release it.
HANNITY: But key scenes were cut out of this film, as we just showed our audience here. I mean, you say they showed a lot of courage in airing it, but they did give in to political pressure.
NOWRASTEH: You know, Sean, they cut out about just under three minutes in a sequence, as you know, which was the sequence where they had bin Laden surrounded in Afghanistan. I know -- I talked to a lot of people who watched the broadcast version, and they got the message. The message was that these people in Washington were unwilling to act. I agree, I wish it had been shown in its original state, that sequence, because it was very well done. But the message got through.
HANNITY: But you spent a lot of time, you dedicated your life, meticulous detail -- you know, in particular, you wanted accuracy from the very beginning. And then they cut out a very key portion of this here. I've got to believe there's a level of frustration for you on this.
NOWRASTEH: Look, there's a level of frustration. But I also know how unprecedented that pressure that came down last fall was, and that has continued. And no network, no studio has had to face that kind of pressure ever. What happened when [Michael Moore's 2004 film] Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Reagans miniseries didn't even come close. And I just want them to continue to release this thing, to get it out there. Show the scene that was cut in its original state on the special features of the DVD.
HANNITY: Absolutely.
NOWRASTEH: That'll be attractive to the viewers.
HANNITY: Well, that was attractive to our viewers when we aired it the first time. It was one of the highest-rated segments we've ever had on this program. Look, I would say this --
NOWRASTEH: That's what I understand.
HANNITY: What's so frustrating to me is we have a 9-11 Commission to investigate all of this. We have Sandy Berger stealing these archived documents. We still to this day don't know the full extent of what he took out of here. We don't know Bill Clinton's -- whether he encouraged that or not. They pressured Disney here. It seems like a cover-up of mass proportions about the worst attack in American history here.
NOWRASTEH: Sean, I believe that the attack on The Path to 9/11 by the Clintons and Sandy Berger, they attacked it for the same reasons that Sandy Berger went and stole and destroyed documents at the National Archives. They wanted to suppress history, they want to rewrite history. I believe they are -- you know, they have criminally distorted history because he destroyed original documents. And I don't think Disney, ABC, or any other network or production company should stand by for that. The Path to 9/11 got it right.
HANNITY: You know what, Cyrus? It did get it right. And I'd written about it in my first book, and I applaud you for the great work that you did here, and obviously it was rewarded with very high ratings. Cyrus, thanks for updating us on this, we'll see you again soon. Thank you for being with us.
NOWRASTEH: Thank you, Sean.
















the screenwriter lied before the thing even aired. he said he had to do his "own research" because the 9-11 report "only goes back to 1998". that's a total fabrication, it goes back decades before.
i didn't mention it, but that's nowrasteh i'm talking about. pathological liar.
nowrasteh also admitted he got a lot of his "research" from "buzz" patterson, a guy who wrote two critical books about clinton. but good ol buzz greatly exaggerrated his position in the clinton administration. what patterson did, for two years, was carry the "nuclear football" which contains the nuclear launch codes. but there are five people at any particular time who switch on and off duty. patterson presented himself as somehow intimately aware of every aspect of decision making, which is preposterous on the face of it.
or let us consider this testimony before the 9-11 commission on april 8, 2004: "on an operational level, we decided immediately to to continue pursuing the clinton administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the [al-qaeda] network. clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very imporatant priority." and that would be????....oh, that's condi rice, bush's national security adviser. or we can interview buzz patterson, who said on the don caplis show, khow in denver on 9-26-06, that one particular day clinton refused to launch a strike against bin laden, but a caller to the show noted that in his book patterson said the strike was against iraq, not bin laden. from world net daily on 9-8-06: "reached by phone at his home in southern california, nowrasteh confirmed to wnd he consulted with patterson and gave him a preview of the drama".
preview it next time.
me, i meant. excuse the errors.
this is what nowrasteh told frontpagemag.com on 8-16-06: "i also expanded my research beyond the commission report, which only goes back to 1998, concluding that i needed to go back to the first attack on the world trade center in 1993". he didn't read this, 9-11 report page 71: "at 18 minutes after noon on feb. 26, 1993, a huge bomb went off beneath the two towers of the world trade center". page 72: "the fbi and [clinton] justice department did excellent work investigating the bombing".
A seven post arguement with yourself? Wow!!
What's the big deal about the miniseries not being totally factual? ABC said it was "based" on the report, not that it was taken word for word from it. Since when has ANYTHING out of hollywood been factual when based on true events? Heck, even farenhieght 9-11 was full of bunk and was shown to be total lies, but still is considered the "9-11 bible" by many liberals and left leaning conspiracy theorists. So, just because you don't like the content of the ABC version of 9-11 events doesn't mean that parts of it aren't true. I think the fact that Clinton didn't appreciate what was said about him shows that he didn't do things the right way and are being shown to be failures on his part. His ego isn't allowing facts to be represented, I think he is having his subordinates promote a theory that he did everything right and anyone who says otherwise is totally un-american.
"I think the fact that Clinton didn't appreciate what was said about him shows that he didn't do things the right way and are being shown to be failures on his part."
Here's a thought experiment for you;your wife goes out on a three-state killing spree. Now, you were always a good husband, tried to help her and support her however possible. But, when the TV movie comes out about it, you're portrayed as an alcoholic, drug-abusing, wife-beating child molester who drove her into her insane behavior.
If you raise a stink about it, I'm going to say that your lack of appreciation clearly proves that you know you did something wrong. Or, if you don't say anything at all about it, I can say that your lack of protest shows that it's true. And what's the big deal if it isn't, right? Other parts of it are still true, so what's the problem?
To add, if nobody really cares about whether a story is true or not, then why was there so much right-wing hysteria over the Reagan biopic? I mean, as far as I saw all they did was make up a quote. Most of it was true, right?
I also wonder who's said anything regarding "un-American" here. Can we distinguish between not being completely perfect and being portrayed as totally incompetent? I think there's some middle ground you're conveniently overlooking there.
Auto,
The biggest difference between Farenheit 9/11 and this movie is the placement. I have yet to see Farenheit 9/11 on network television. People who wanted to see it had to make far more of an effort and head to the theater and pay to see it. It was not shown on a network many Americans trust for news and information. To me, that is huge. I would object to it being on television minus disclaimers.
What did you think of the FBI agents who quit consulting because of the amounts of inaccuracies in the picture?
From Wikipedia (for many more criticisms, check the article):
Two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents criticized the film for creating a work of fiction, and claiming it was accurate. Thomas E. Nicoletti had been hired by the filmmakers as a consultant, but quit[24] because "'There were so many inaccuracies...I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,' Mr. Nicoletti said. 'And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.'"[25]
"Dan Coleman, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script last summer after being approached by producers about being a technical advisor.
“They sent me the script, and I read it and told them they had to be kidding,” Mr. Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the F.B.I. to still speak to me.” "[26]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_to_9/11#Criticisms_of_historical_inaccuracy_by_FBI_consultants
Bill Bennett also thought the film should be edited and he is far from liberal.
Richard Clarke said this about the film:
expert Richard Clarke made the following criticisms of the film:[41]
(also from the same wikipedia article)
"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and a number of noted historians have published an open letter to ABC expressing concern about "flagrant falsehoods about critical events in recent American history", concluding: "A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it. We strongly urge you to halt the show's broadcast and prevent misinforming Americans about their history."[63]
What the small print says from Mr. Clarke:
Never mind, if you want to see what Clarke said, click the link. Sorry all.
hey auto. maybe you want to argue with nowrasteh and hannity. you say so what if it isn't factual. but they call it accurate, meticulous detail, vindicated, got it right. sounds like you boys disagree. and the truth is that abc originally promoted this propaganda as "based" on the 9-11 report. and then they said well maybe not so much. here's what it comes down to. you cannot claim to be accurate when you are lying about the simplest, most obvious facts.
The Path to 9/11 is full of lies. That's been well established. And Hannity is a shill for ABC. That's obvious. What is more disturbing is that MMFA and most everyone who posts here hold up the 9/11 Commission Report as the gold standard of truth about 9/11 and the background of it. The Report is also riddled with lies, and its executive director was Philip Zelikow, who is a Bush-neocon insider. There is hardly anything true in the whole book. The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson is a good source for accurate 9/11 background, and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin is a good source on 9/11 itself. MMFA should stop spreading lies by supporting the Commission Report.
"Why should one U.S. airman give up his life when our national security is not in imminent danger?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"Number one is the president has really failed to lay out before the American people the reason why we need to be involved militarily. That's number one. And then we go back to Harry Kissinger's test, which is number one, is there a vital U.S. national interest? And do we have a plan to disengage? What's the exit strategy? I don't see that we've met that test either. And why does it have to happen this second, this hour? Why don't we have a national debate first?" - Sean Hannity, March 24 1999
"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?" - Sean Hannity March 24 1999
"Sure Milosevic's a bad guy...but that doesn't mean we should go to war...He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Are you saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2000 - and I'm not minimizing death. Its horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers - 2000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?" - Hannity on the O'Reilly factor April 5, 1999
Wow,
Great finds, Monk!!! Mind if I cut and paste?
Feel free!
Just a stupid attempt to re-write history, commented upon by a person (Hannity) who is so partisan that he is only credible to the zealots that listen to him with the same blinders on.
the path to 9/11 probably started when oil was first discovered in the middle east...
Any depiction of the path to 9-11 that doesn't include the Republican traitors in congress screaming "Wag the dog" and claiming that Clinton was trying to divert attention from the oh-so-vital-to-national security BJ-in-the-oval-office story by lobbing cruise missiles at OBL is a flat out lie.
"the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," - Sean Hannity
Hannity's right, but what's so funny about this statement is that Hannity acts as if it was some sort of evidence or footage that Clinton doesn't want people to see. If somebody filmed an actor portraying Bill Clinton robbing a bank in a video and presented as a true story, I don't think that Clinton would want people to see that either.
Of course, instead of complaining about the artistic license of a Hollywood producer, you could complain about the fecklessness of the Clinton Administration...
But never fear, one is like important, and the other doesn't matter at all.
Surely no one well acquainted with reality expects Hannity to be accurate about anything he reports. Actually the hateful talk spewed out of the moths of folks like Hannity and Limbaugh and Savage account for the reason folks are opting out of the Republican Party. The time came when I realized that the party had left truth-telling and had sucked it up to the most unprofessional talk show folks.
I love it that you are pointing these things out, but they are no surprise to many of us who left the party. The shrill, hateful, undocumented statements out of these folks used to embarass me when I was still in the party. In fact the more they rant, the more will be leaving the party. But they have lost their mojo. They tried to gin up support for Republicans in the run-up to the last election and everyone can see how little it did.
We can expect to see moderate Republicans like me vote democratic - in droves in fact. We do not listen to their accusations about Obama, Clinton, Mrs. Edwards, or any of the other candidates. Sorry, Mr. Hannity, your influene is dwindling by the day. I and a bunch of other progressives are in your audience everyday so we know how to refute your spleen.
Does Hannity think somehow this discredited "Path to 9/11" will in any way help his NeoCons retain some power in governent? He's telling his paranoid Clinton-hating audience "once this repressed TRUTH gets out", then people will really open their eyes.
Well, guess what? This faked-up "shockumentary" has been OUT for a long time, and all it has been is DISCREDITED. The filmmaker has been forced to admit that he "created" many scenes which have nothing to do with anything anybody actually observed. In other words, FICTION ... and a FICTION with the express goal of smearing the Clinton Administration.
So now, Hannity has taken on the cause of the "release of the DVD" as a moment of great national importance ... WHY? Because in his mind, ANYTHING that distracts from the horror that is the BUSH Administration must be promoted to the fullest. Dealing with the REALITY of the disasters, one after another, that Bush, Cheney, and their henchmen have been perpetrating on the nation ... at GREAT cost in lives and treasure ... is just too painful, and will have a predictable result: REJECTION of all that is Republican.
Well, Sean, it's too late!
To distract from his party's scofflaws,
Sean is desperately grasping at straws.
It seems that the smears
Which define his career,
Have now solidly exposed all his lies, innuendoes, suspicions, fabrications, accusations, fictions, misinformation, ... and character flaws.
--------
So, what do you do when your career's come a cropper, Sean? You might look to evangelicals whose schtick was exposed ... Swaggart, Bakers, Haggard ... and see your future of humiliation and then nothingness.
Amen, Tex
A question I'd like to ask Hannity - When did you stop beating your wife?
FOG:
The question would be, HAVE you stopped beating your wife? Calls for a YES or NO answer ... no further explanation, and contains within it the PREMISE ... accepted as TRUE ... that he HAS BEEN beating his wife. The question is whether he has STOPPED.
To ask WHEN is too detailed a question, and invites avoidance.
Did The Path to 9-11 show bush ignoring the PDB entitled Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US?
This shows you what kind of lazy writing was involved; they couldn't even come up with a more original title, since there already was a film called The Road to 9-11.
Media Matters, you continue to ignore THE BIGGEST LIE in "the Path to 9/11":The ABC miniseries "The Path to 9-11" lies to serve Israel's agenda: ABC lied about what bin Laden's fatwa said!
ABC's movie "The Path to 9-11" was extremely ugly. They lied about what bin Laden's fatwa said. It didn't say, as they portrayed, "There is no room for negotiation unless and until America converts to Islam." It is clear why the ABC movie lied.
The 1996 fatwa the movie misrepresents actually says things like "It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports."The fatwa actually lists the same grievances bin Laden and others have mentioned for years as the 1993 letter from the terrorists made crystal clear: "This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region."Bin Laden has made the motives clear and until what: "We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel."The US has since pulled the troops out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11.
see: The ABC miniseries "The Path to 9-11" lies to serve Israel's agenda
I remember when Hannity had a local right-wing talk show on an Atlanta station. He didn't bother to acquaint himself with facts back then, and evidently he still doesn't bother.
Sean is an agenda-driven, PR spokeshole for the GOP. He will do what it takes to make sure no Democrat is in power. This is his goal and mission in life.
He's an expert in lies, smear and fearmongering, but he didn't learn this from Fox News Channel. He has always been this way ever since his days as a volunteer radio talk show host at the University of Santa Barbara, California in 1987.
Someone should turn the tables on Sean and write a bio on him. Expose his dirty little secrets. I can guarantee that this would be a definite best seller on the New York Times list.