FourWinds10.com - Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

THE PATH TO 911

More Recent Stories

Help Us Grow

Like Us On Facebook and Follow Our Posts

Most Emailed

From Wikipedia

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

The Path to 9/11 was a two-part miniseries that aired in the United States on ABC television from September 10 – 11, 2006, and also in other countries. The film dramatizes the 2001 terrorist attack upon the World Trade Center in New York City and the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The film was initially promoted as having a high level of authenticity, with claims that its screenplay was "based on the 9/11 Commission Report", but controversy arose when this claim was later removed by ABC. Critics pointed out that key scenes were fictional in nature, and the controversy ensued.

The film was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, a conservative screenwriter[1], and directed by David L. Cunningham; it stars Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg.[2]

According to ABC:

“ The Path to 9/11" is executive-produced by Marc Platt (Empire Falls). The producers are Hans Proppe (Anne Frank) and Cyrus Nowrasteh (also the writer). Governor Thomas H. Kean (Chairman, The 9/11 Commission) is senior consultant. The director is David L. Cunningham. The miniseries is a production of UHP Productions, Ltd., and is distributed by ABC Studios, formerly Touchstone Television.[3] ”

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Cast

[edit] Plot

The miniseries presents a dramatization of the sequence of events leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks by Al Qaeda on the United States, starting from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and up to the minutes after the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001, based on the 9/11 Commission reports. The point of view of the movie is from two primary protagonists: John P. O'Neill, and a composite Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agent, "Kirk". O'Neill was the real-life Special Agent in charge of Al Qaeda investigations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He died in the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11 shortly after retiring from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and taking the position of Director of Security for the World Trade Center. The composite CIA agent "Kirk" is shown dealing with various American allies, especially Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, in Afghanistan. In addition, "Patricia", a CIA headquarters analyst, represents the views of the rank and file at CIA headquarters. The miniseries features dramatizations of various incidents summarized in the 9/11 Commission Report, and represented in high level discussions held within both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The final hour of the movie dramatizes the events of 9/11, including a re-creation of the second plane entering the World Trade Center, Tom Burnett's calls to his wife, and John Miller's reporting near the scene of the attacks. The film concludes with information about the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the performance evaluation the Commission gave the government when it reconvened in 2005.

[edit] Broadcasting

[edit] United States

  • Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:00pm-10:45pm (shortened from 11 PM) at EDT on ABC
  • Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 8:00pm-9:00pm at EDT on ABC
  • Part 2 (continued): September 11, 2006 at 9:20pm-10:17pm at EDT on ABC (After President Bush National Address) (See exception)

ABC's broadcasts though originally planned to be shown "with limited commercial interruption" were aired with no commercials, since the network was unable to obtain sponsorship.[4] The broadcasts were also watched in Canada, where the network is available on cable and satellite.

Part 2 of the miniseries, also uninterrupted, aired in the San Diego, California market on KGTV nearly a week later, on September 16, 2006, from 8:30pm-10:30 pm.[citation needed]

[edit] Australia

  • Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:30pm on Channel Seven
  • Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 9:30pm on Channel Seven

[edit] Belgium

  • Part 1: August 20, 2008 at 9:10pm on RTL-TVI
  • Part 2: August 20, 2008 at 10:00pm on RTL-TVI
  • Part 3: August 20, 2008 at 10:50pm on RTL-TVI

[edit] Finland

In Finland the miniseries was shown in five parts as distinct from normal two.

[edit] India

  • Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 9:00pm on Zee Studio
  • Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 9:00pm on Zee Studio

[edit] New Zealand

  • Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 7:30pm on TV One
  • Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 7:30pm on TV One

[edit] Norway

[edit] South Africa

  • Part 1: September 11, 2007 on M-Net
  • Part 2: September 11, 2007 on M-Net

[edit] Spain

  • Part 1: September 12, 2007 at 10.00pm on Antena 3
  • Part 2: September 12, 2007 at 12:00pm on Antena 3

[edit] United Kingdom

  • Part 1: September 10, 2006 at 8:00pm on BBC2
  • Part 2: September 11, 2006 at 8:30pm on BBC2

BBC2's broadcasts were also watched in Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands, where the channel is available on cable.

[edit] Production history

According to ABC, the movie is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, books The Cell by John Miller and The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz,[3] as well as personal interviews, news accounts, and other sources.[5] The first indication that ABC was running a miniseries appeared in a brief article in the New York Post.[6] In it, the producers identified shooting locations and revealed that Harvey Keitel would play John O'Neill. At the time, ABC had a working name of Untitled Commission Report and the producers used the working title Untitled History Project, with the project beginning filming in July 2005 and scheduled to end post production by January 2006. Preview screenings were made in May for foreign broadcasters.[7] The film was first publicly announced at the Television Critics Association summer press tour in July.

According to Advertising Age, the miniseries was a personal project of ABC entertainment president Steve McPherson, who began to look for a producer shortly after reading the 9/11 Commission Report.

The White House asked the major networks for airtime to present a Presidential Address to the nation. The interruption delayed the broadcast of the second half of Path to 9/11 by approximately 20 minutes in the Eastern and Central Time Zones. Otherwise, the movie aired without any interruption.

Filming was conducted in Morocco, New York City, Toronto, Hamilton, Ontario[8] and Washington, D. C. The production was one of the few allowed to film at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia.[9]

[edit] Controversy and criticisms

ABC advertised the involvement of Republican 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean as both a consultant and as a co-executive producer.[10][clarification needed]

Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste said that the miniseries misrepresented many facts presented in the the 9/11 Commission report, and noted that no Democratic 9/11 Commission member had been consulted.[11]

The extent of the criticism and indignation expressed resulted in ABC revising its original description of the film as a "docu-drama based on the 9/11 Commission Report" to describe it as a dramatization of events based only in part on the 9/11 Commission Report. The network also added a disclaimer to that effect three times during both nights of the U.S. broadcast. However, these last-minute revisions and the dilution of its original claims were made too late to prevent the Path to 9/11 film being marketed in some other countries as the "Official True Story".[citation needed]

To date, ABC's $40 million miniseries, which drew a combined audience of 25 million, has not been released on DVD. Writer and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh has said that a stalled release is not due to lack of interest but rather strong political pressure. He told the Los Angeles Times that "[P]owerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton's presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House". Furthermore, Nowrasteh goes on to explain that he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that "if Hillary weren't running for president, this wouldn't be a problem." According to the LA Times, an ABC spokeswoman reached September 4, 2007 would say only that the company "has no release date at this time," and she declined to comment further.[12] In an interview with KFI's John Ziegler, Nowrasteh candidly discusses the issue.[13]

[edit] Advance viewing copies selectively distributed

Final version of the "Path to 9/11" disclaimer created by ABC for the US broadcast

The extensive pre-broadcast controversy over the film was based on content that was present in viewing copies sent to conservative political groups, talk show hosts and bloggers.[14] The office of former President Clinton repeatedly requested a preview copy, but was denied one, [15] as was former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.[16] However, a version was shown at a Washington, D.C. screening to members and guests of the National Press Club, [17] and to attendees of the Midwest Security and Police Conference in Chicago. [18]

[edit] Background of writer/producer

The film's writer/producer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, has described himself as "probably more of a libertarian than a strict conservative," but "it's not the predominant thing that's driving me, my career, or my writing." He said further that he did not "want to just be a conservative version of Michael Moore."[19] Nowrasteh also wrote and directed The Day Reagan Was Shot, a TV movie for which Oliver Stone was the executive producer.[20]

Nowrastech has been a featured speaker and columnist[21] for the Liberty Film Festival - a Conservative film festival which merged in 2006 with David Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture (now the David Horowitz Freedom Center) to form a joint conservative film organization.[22] In November 2006, He received an award in 2006 from the Liberty Film Festival for his participation in The Path to 9/11.[23] [24]

[edit] Historical context of the controversy

Sister project Wikinews has related news: ABC comes under fire for alleged partisan slant in 9/11 miniseries

Much of the context of the controversy surrounding The Path to 9/11 concerns criticisms that the movie incorrectly portrays events and actions of the US government during the 1990s in combating al-Qaeda.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report provides details on many failed initiatives during both the Clinton and Bush administrations in the years before the attacks. During the Clinton administration, the report describes several situations where the United States was unable to capitalize on intelligence opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. These include: [25]

  • The claim by Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States in 1995, widely cited in newspaper reports. However, the 9/11 Commission was able to find "no credible evidence that this was so" (page 110).
  • Canceled CIA-led plans in May 1998 to use allied Tribal forces to capture bin Laden at Tarnak Farms in Afghanistan (page 111).
  • Intelligence locating bin Laden at the Haji Habash house in Kandahar in December 1998, accessible by cruise missile strike, which was not carried out (page 130). However, in this case, post-hoc analysis suggests that bin Laden left his room unexpectedly and would not have been hit (page 140).
  • Intelligence locating bin Laden at the Sheikh Ali camp south of Kandahar in February 1999, accessible by cruise missile strike, which was not carried out (page 137).
  • CIA reporting on bin Laden being located in the vicinity of Kandahar in May 1999 (page 140). Again, the military was order to "stand down" and no strike occurred. The latter strike is described in the 9/11 Commission Report as "the last, and most likely best, opportunity... for targeting bin Laden with cruise missiles before 9/11."

[edit] Criticisms of historical inaccuracy by FBI consultants

Two FBI agents criticized the film for creating a work of fiction, and claimed it was inaccurate. Thomas E. Nicoletti had been hired by the filmmakers as a consultant, but quit[26] because "There were so many inaccuracies...I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy," Nicoletti said. "And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.'"[27]

Dan Coleman, who retired from the FBI in 2004, said he also was concerned when he read the script in the summer of 2005 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," Coleman said. “I wanted my friends at the FBI to still speak to me.”[27]

[edit] Alleged assassination opportunities not used by Clinton

Critics claim many inaccuracies in the film, including the depiction of the Clinton administration. For example in one scene, former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as unwilling to approve a plan to take out a surrounded Osama bin Laden. He leaves it to former CIA Director George Tenet to decide if he will take responsibility. In the original version of the film[28], Berger hangs up the phone on Tenet, and Tenet calls off the operation. No reliable verification of this event has ever been discovered. In fact, even Richard Miniter — a conservative author and critic of the Clinton administration — was quoted as saying

“ the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that.”".[29] ”

Nowrasteh has said that the abrupt hang-up portrayed was not in the script and was instead improvised. It was later removed from the version shown in the United States.[30] Moreover, Nowrasteh maintains that a certain amount of dramatic license must be allotted in the process writing a dramatic script with a historical underpinning (see docudrama and biopic). Although the precise conversations depicted in the script may never have taken place, the general tone and content of events depicted in The Path to 9/11 are alleged true. Nowrasteh has said that the film "dramatizes the frequent opportunities the administration had in the 90’s to stop bin Laden in his tracks but lacked the will to do so.” [31] When asked if he thought of the script as a "historical document," Nowrasteh has responded:

“ No, but I stand by the original version of the movie, and I stand by the edited version... There has to be conflation of events. The most obvious problem any dramatist faces is that of sheer length. I had to collapse the events of eight and a half years into five hours. I don’t know any other way to do it except collapse, conflate, and condense.[32] ”

Nowrasteh used the book Dereliction of Duty[33] by Robert "Buzz" Patterson as a source for portions of the movie.[34][35] In 2006 Patterson served as a board member for Move America Forward [36]- a conservative political PAC, and was a host of a conservative talk show The Buzz Cut for a number of years [37]. He also serves as Chief Operating Officer of the conservative David Horowitz Freedom Center[38]. As a former Senior Military Aide to President Clinton, he was one of five men entrusted with carrying the President’s Emergency Satchel, otherwise known as the Nuclear Football.

Dereliction of Duty contains a compilation several events witnessed by Patterson. In an interview with World Net Daily, Patterson agrees that scenes from The Path to 9/11 conflate several events, but he maintains that the overall depiction of how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden was correct.[35] Patterson states that he witnessed several incidents similar to those depicted in the movie, where Berger was pressing Clinton for a decision to strike at bin Laden, "but he couldn't get a decision from the President." Dereliction of Duty recounts an event where Berger was informed in the situation room by a military watch officer, "Sir, we have a two-hour window to strike." Clinton did not return phone calls for Berger for more than an hour, then said he wanted more time to study the situation. Patterson also describes a second incident where Berger placed an urgent call to Clinton through Patterson. Clinton, who was watching a golf tournament, became irritated, and after a third attempt at relaying the message, responded that he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. According to Patterson, by then the window of opportunity was closed. [35]

According to the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, there were several real-life circumstances where plans to capture bin Laden were called off that may roughly speaking match the description of events occurring in the movie (see above).[25]

In May 1998, plans by the CIA to utilize allied tribal forces to capture bin Laden were called off (page 114). Both Berger and Tenet claim it was Tenet, not Berger, who called off plans. However, the report makes no claim as to who actually called off the operation, and it notes that the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations James Pavitt said he "thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice." Berger claims, and his claims are presented uncontested in the Report, the operation was never in the execution stage in the first place because it was not feasible for local tribes and warlords to assist in his capture and delivery to the United States.[39]

In February 1999, a potential cruise missile strike against bin Laden was called off. According to the report, "Clarke told us the strike was called off after consultations with Director Tenet because the intelligence was dubious..." (page 130). Again in May 1999, a potential cruise missile strike against bin Laden was called off. Here again, the report suggests that it was Tenet who was responsible for canceling the attack, based on concerns regarding the reliability of intelligence (page 140).

An article at ThinkProgress.com states that anti-terrorism expert Richard Clarke made the following criticisms of the film:[40]

  1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan to have spotted bin Laden. (When asked about this apparent discrepancy, Nowrasteh stated, "I've interviewed CIA agents who have told me otherwise. But that is the one concession we made. [In the original,] we had a CIA agent on the ground near bin Laden's compound—inside the wall even—and we took that out for the final presentation."[32])
  2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Ahmed Shah Massoud, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and therefore could not have seen Osama bin Laden.
  3. Contrary to the movie, Tenet actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced, and there would be no way to independently confirm bin Laden's presence in the target area by the time an already launched cruise missile would have reached it.

A member of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Ben-Veniste also stated that the scene depicting Berger hanging up the phone on Tenet is fictional.[41]

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit during the Clinton administration, a critic of President George W. Bush's Iraq policy, says it was not Berger who canceled assaults on bin Laden, but rather Clarke on Clinton's behalf. Scheuer states, "Mr. Clarke, of course, was at the center of Mr. Clinton's advisers, who resolutely refused to order the CIA to kill bin Laden. In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense, and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke's reaction was that "it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden." I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke's response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so".[42]

[edit] Former Secretary of State Albright questions her portrayal

Another scene in question supposedly portrays Madeleine Albright refusing to shoot missiles at Osama bin Laden without authority from Pakistan and eventually getting "permission" from them against the military's wishes. Albright insists that this is completely inaccurate.[43][44] According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Pakistan was informed by the US Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph W. Ralston who "was sent to meet with Pakistan's army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India." [45]

[edit] Inaccuracies regarding airline travel

In the opening scene of the film, American Airlines is depicted as ignoring a security warning regarding hijacker Mohammed Atta. The airline involved was actually U.S. Airways.[46]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report: "While Atta had been selected by CAPPS [a security warning at a U.S. Airway ticket counter] in Portland [Maine] three members of... [Atta's] hijacking team - Suqami, Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri - were selected [at an American Airline counter] in Boston. Their selection affected only the handling of their checked bags, not their screening at the checkpoint. All five men cleared the checkpoint and made their way to the gate for American 11." [47] The incorrect depiction of location and airline may be justified as "time compression and compositing", as described in the film's disclaimer, or it may be an example of careless writing and sloppy fact-checking.

As a result of the inaccuracy, American Airlines stated they planned to pull all advertising from the ABC network and were considering legal action. [48]

[edit] ABC-selected pre-screenings

ABC, which offered the movie to schools, critics, some blogs, radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, and conservative movie critic Michael Medved, eventually presented a special screening to which Democrats such as Richard Ben-Veniste were also invited. According to Jay Carson, a spokesman for Bill Clinton, Clinton's office requested a copy of the movie so that they could view it before it aired, but the request was denied. However, Limbaugh has at least partially disputed this, claiming that Ben-Veniste and others saw the film before him.[49] Carson has also stated that Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger had also requested a copy and had also not received them.[50]

This prompted Albright and Berger to write letters [51] [52] to ABC asking why they had not received copies and why ABC have chosen to run a movie whose accuracy is highly in question.

In addition to requesting an answer, Albright also stated the following reason for wanting a copy:

“ For example, one scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true. In fact, The 9/11 Commission Report states (page 117), "Since the missiles headed for Afghanistan had had to cross Pakistan, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs was sent to meet with Pakistan’s army chief of staff to assure him the missiles were not coming from India. Officials in Washington speculated that one or another Pakistani official might have sent a warning to the Taliban or Bin Ladin."[51] ”

[edit] Clinton responds

On September 7, Clinton warned ABC through his attorneys that The Path to 9/11 misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

“ Clinton pointedly refutted [sic] several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.[53]

 ”

[edit] Senate Democrats' letter to ABC

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Byron Dorgan sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the President and CEO of the Walt Disney Company. Their letter includes the following statement:

“ Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."[54]

 ”

[edit] Scholastic Press announcement

Scholastic Press, which had a deal with ABC to distribute "educational materials" based on the movie, pulled the materials in question from their website on September 7, substituting them with materials focusing on "critical thinking and media literacy skills".[55]

Dick Robinson, Chairman, President and CEO of Scholastic Press, had this to say on the matter:

“ After a thorough review of the original guide that we offered online to about 25,000 high school teachers, we determined that the materials did not meet our high standards for dealing with controversial issues... at the same time, we believe that developing critical thinking and media literacy skills is crucial for students in today’s society in order to participate fully in our democracy and that a program such as 'The Path to 9/11' provides a very 'teachable moment' for developing these skills at the high school level. We encourage teachers not to shy away from the controversy surrounding the program, but rather to engage their students in meaningful, in-depth discussion.[55] ”

[edit] Responses from cast and crew

Harvey Keitel, who plays the lead role in the film, also criticized the script, saying that "it turned out not all the facts were correct" and "you cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event."[56] Keitel also said there was "discussion" and "argument" on-set during the filming about what was truthful and what was not, and that he disagreed with certain decisions.

Producer Marc Platt has acknowledged that the script was based in part on a book co-written by a Bush administration official. The book, The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot, and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It was co-written by John Miller, who serves as the assistant director of public affairs for the FBI.[57]

[edit] Response from Barbara Bodine

On September 8, former Ambassador to Yemen Barbara Bodine complained in a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed about her portrayal in the film: "According to the mythmakers, a battle ensued between a cop obsessed with tracking down Osama bin Laden and a bureaucrat more concerned with the feelings of the host government than the fate of Americans and the realities of terrorism. I know this is false. I was there. I was the ambassador."[58] The ABC miniseries compressed Bodine's role to a single extended scene, suggesting she was dismissive, hostile, and vulgar toward FBI investigator John O'Neill from the moment of his October 2000 arrival in Yemen (see USS Cole bombing).

A 2003 biography of O'Neill, The Man Who Warned America, recounts everything in the scene and portrays her in a similar light.

Television actress Patricia Heaton, who played Bodine and who has her own independent ABC development deal, did not comment on the controversy surrounding The Path to 9/11 nor its worldwide broadcast on September 10-11, 2006.

[edit] Response by pre-screeners

Before the miniseries aired, some screeners of previews of The Path to 9/11 asserted that certain scenes misrepresented the real-life events upon which they were said to be based, and that some scenes were complete fabrications. Fox News personality James Hirsen countered that the film, while containing elements of a dramatization, was overall fair and very well grounded in fact.[59] Still, some public figures (many of whom claim to have been denied the opportunity to see the movie in advance) have picked up on this and accused ABC of being unfair in its portrayal of the Clinton Administration's attitudes and actions regarding terrorism.[citation needed] There are also claims that some individuals portrayed in the film were not given special DVD preview copies before it was aired publicly.[citation needed]

In addition to the fictionalized scenes and misrepresentations, preview copies have also contained several smaller errors that prompted criticism that the film is sloppy in its fidelity to facts. For example, a caption in the film misspelled Madeleine Albright's name.[60] Another example is a scene portraying a warning popping up on a computer when Mohamed Atta boarded American Airlines Flight 11 in Boston. The scene was factually inaccurate; Atta actually boarded a connecting U.S. Airways flight in Bangor, Maine.[61]

[edit] Open letter/questionable props

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian was among many distinguished historians who 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."[62]

During production of the movie, there was a controversy in the Toronto media over the use of discarded medical charts and records as document props. The Privacy Commissioner for the province of Ontario launched an investigation and the producers destroyed footage including the garbage and sent all remaining documents to a shredding service for disposal.[63]

[edit] Advertising discrepancies

While in the U.S. the film was marketed as a loose dramatization of events based on the 9/11 Commission Report, television advertising for the film in countries outside the U.S. called the film the "Official True Story".[citation needed] Further, an Australian TV listing called the film "the story of exactly what happened", which later changed to "The thrilling dramatised investigation" as the airing time drew near.[64]

[edit] A Republican supports editing film

Republican William Bennett joined those saying there is "no reason to falsify the record" or "falsify conversations". During an appearance on CNN he called on ABC to correct the inaccuracies of the show and for fellow conservatives to join him in such a demand.[65]

[edit] Misinformer of 2006

On December 22, 2006 Media Matters for America, describing itself as a "Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" [66] named ABC as "Misinformer" of 2006 for, among other things in The Path to 9/11, calling it:

a two-part miniseries that placed the blame for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Clinton administration and whitewashed some of the Bush administration's failures leading up to the attacks.[67][67]

[edit] Allegation of non-profit involvement

Allegations of religious involvement surfaced in 2006, when journalist Max Blumenthal commented on David Loren Cunningham and his former links to the international mission organization Youth With A Mission. David is the son of Youth WIth A Mission founder Loren Cunningham. This connection to Youth WIth A Mission, and past allegations of a political agenda within the organization, were mentioned by Blumenthal. He also noted the previous intentions of David Cunningham to 'revolutionize' film and television by founding an auxiliary group within Youth WIth A Mission called TFI (The Film Institute). Youth WIth A Mission International Chairman Lynn Green acknowledged the allegations, yet rebutted these concerns, insisting that the organization, "had nothing to do with financing the film, nor did any YWAM personnel have any influence on the content of the film."[68][69][70]

[edit] Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11

[edit] 9/11 Commission Kean's comment

Additionally, a book by Thomas Kean, a member of the 9/11 Commission who worked as an adviser to the film, is also included as published material.[71] Kean supports the film saying, "People in both parties didn't particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren't going to love this one".[71] Kean also remarked on ABC's Good Morning America: "It's something the American people should see because you understand how these people wanted to do us harm, developed this plot, and how the machinations of the American government under two administrations not only failed to stop them, but even failed to slow them down."[72] According to the New York Times of the 13th September, Kean said that he had vetted much of the screenplay for accuracy and that he was confident it reflected the spirit of what happened. "I’m very happy with it," he said.

[edit] ABC maintains film is non-partisan

ABC continued to maintain that their movie was non-partisan and responded to critics by explaining that, "No one has seen the final version of the film, because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."[73]

[edit] Film storyline corroboration

In a November 2004 Weekly Standard article, Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, tends to lend support to the overall theme in The Path to 9/11 that Berger, Tenet and Clarke were more concerned about collateral damage than killing or capturing bin Laden[74]:

“ Scheuer thinks Clarke is a risk-averse poseur who didn't do enough to fight bin Laden prior to September 11, 2001. At his breakfast with reporters, Scheuer said that on 10 separate occasions his unit, codename "Alec," provided key policymakers with information that could've led to the killing or capture of Osama bin Laden. "In each of those 10 instances, the senior policymaker in charge, whether it was Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, or George Tenet," resisted taking action, afraid it would result in collateral damage or a backlash on the Arab street. According to Scheuer, Clarke’s story has changed in the time since. ”

[edit] Responses from the right

Some conservative commentators have responded to the controversy by suggesting that what they call "the deep anger of the Clinton political machine" or the "narcissistic whining of the Clinton coterie" amounts to "self-serving complaints," to "an irrelevant diversion," to a "repellent" "hissy fit," and to quibbling about details in what talk radio host Hugh Hewitt described as "a very accurate docudrama" whose main message, according to Brent Bozell, is that "America's intelligence apparatus was woefully unprepared for 9-11, and remains dangerously inadequate today."[75] Bozell further stated that both "Clinton and Bush officials come under fire, and if it seems more anti-Clinton, that's only because they were in office a lot longer than Team Bush before 9-11. Indeed, the film drives home the point that from our enemies' perspective, it's irrelevant who is in the White House. They simply want to kill Americans and destroy America. The film doesn't play favorites, and the Bush administration takes its lumps as well." [76] Hewitt added that the "program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship—or lack thereof—of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that. Rather the mini-series is the first attempt — very successful — to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy."[75]

[edit] ABC airs movie with minor changes

On September 10, 2006, Part 1 aired over ABC in the United States as scheduled and without commercial interruption. According to the journal Editor and Publisher Magazine, less than one minute was "cropped out" in comparison to the review copy in its possession. All of the controversial scenes were included in some manner, with only brief shots trimmed and occasional word substitutions made[citation needed]. In addition, a written and spoken disclaimer was aired at the beginning and end of the movie (and just past the midpoint of the first evening's broadcast) reminding viewers that the movie was a fictionalization.[77] The film "is not a documentary," ABC/Disney said.

On September 11, 2006, Part 2 aired as scheduled, without commercials, though it was interrupted halfway in by a speech from President Bush in the Eastern and Central time zones, which pre-empted the only parts of the movie that were critical of Bush's handling of the events of 9/11/2001.

While the first night had lower ratings, the second night received the highest ratings of the night. [78]

[edit] Awards

  • 2007 Emmy Award: Outstanding Single Camera Picture Editing for a Miniseries or a Movie
  • 2007 Emmy Award nominations: Outstanding Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special; Outstanding Cinematography for a Miniseries or Movie; Outstanding Main Title Design; Outstanding Music Composition for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (Original Dramatic Score); Outstanding Sound Editing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special; Outstanding Special Visual Effects for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special;
  • 2007 American Cinema Editors Eddie Award: Best Edited Miniseries or Motion Picture for Commercial Television

[edit] Ratings

[edit] United States

During the original broadcast in the United States, The Path to 9/11 was beat by NFL football and tied a rerun of the film 9/11 shown on CBS.[79]

Ratings
Shown/Network Rating Share
NFL (NBC) 15.1 23
9/11 (CBS, rerun) 8.2 12
Path to 9/11 (ABC) 8.2 12

[edit] Documentary revisits controversy

In September, 2008, film producer David Bossie and former talk show host John Ziegler premiered a direct-to-video documentary entitled Blocking The Path to 9/11[80], which revisits the political controversy behind the miniseries.[81] Through interviews with the Path to 9/11 filmmakers and others, news clips regarding the controversy, and footage from the miniseries itself, the documentary asserts that Disney/ABC ultimately shelved plans to release a DVD of the miniseries as a result of pressure from the political left, specifically the Clintons themselves. As noted in the documentary, Disney/ABC denies this and claims the move was merely a business decision.

[edit] References

  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12671_Page2.html
  2. ^ "The Path to 9/11" at imdb.com
  3. ^ a b ABC.com
  4. ^ War Room: Political News, Politics News - Salon
  5. ^ Credits to Path to 9/11
  6. ^ Kaplan, Don and David K. Li. "SECRETS OF FIRST 9/11 MINISERIES" New York Post, July 28, 2005
  7. ^ Beeb clears a 'Path' for ABC's 9/11 mini - Entertainment News, TV News, Media - Variety
  8. ^ "Internet Movie Database - List of Films shot in Hamilton, Ontario". http://www.imdb.com/List?endings=on&&locations=Hamilton,+Ontario,+Canada. Retrieved on 2008-01-29. 
  9. ^ Boston Globe, Sept. 6, 2006: Makers of ABC miniseries question why 9/11 happened By Suzanne C. Ryan, Globe Staff
  10. ^ ABC Entertainment Gets More Pressure to Toss 9/11 Film, by David Bauder, September 8, 2006
  11. ^ 9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased - New York Times
  12. ^ "Is Clinton's candidacy blocking 'Path to 9/11'?". LA Times. September 5, 2007. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/homeentertainment/la-et-path5sep05,0,2302280.story?coll=la-home-entertainment. 
  13. ^ "Producer Claims ABC Won't Release 'Path to 9/11' DVD". Breitbart TV. September 5, 2007. http://www.webcastr.com/videos/news/producer-claims-abc-wont-release-path-to-9-11-dvd.html. 
  14. ^ LIBERTAS » Blog Archive » LIBERTAS Exclusive! An Advance Review of ABC’s Outstanding The Path to 9/11
  15. ^ ABC News: Comments About ABC Entertainment's 9/11 Film
  16. ^ ABC News: Comments About ABC Entertainment's 9/11 Film
  17. ^ L.A. Times: ABC Stands By Its 9/11 Story — Almost. By Scott Collins and Tina Daunt
  18. ^ abc7chicago.com: Law enforcement gets sneak peak (sic) of 9/11 mini-series 8/02/06
  19. ^ by Interview by Govindini Murty
  20. ^ Cast and Crew for The Day Reagan Was Shot
  21. ^ LIBERTAS » Blog Archive » Interview: Writer-Producer Cyrus Nowrasteh on his \”Into the West\” & \”9/11\” Miniseries
  22. ^ http://www.errvideo.com/Press/liberty%20merges.html
  23. ^ Media Matters - ABC VP presented with "Freedom of Expression Award" at right-wing film festival for her role in pushing The Path to 9/11
  24. ^ LIBERTAS » Blog Archive » Fox News to Air Censored Clips from ABC’s The Path to 9/11
  25. ^ a b National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
  26. ^ Think Progress » FBI Agent Who Consulted On Path to 9/11 Quit Halfway Through Because ‘They Were Making Things Up’
  27. ^ a b F.B.I. Agents Question Accuracy of 9/11 Series - New York Times
  28. ^ The deleted scene at Investor's Business Daily
  29. ^ Think Progress » Conservative Author Richard Miniter: ‘There’s Zero Factual Basis’ For Key Scene In Path To 9/11
  30. ^ New York Times: Three From Clinton Administration Urge Disney to Cancel or Revise 9/11 Mini-Series. September 7, 2006 By Jesse McKinley
  31. ^ FrontPage Magazine
  32. ^ a b Seven Questions: The Path to 9/11 Controversy
  33. ^ Clinton aide says

    9/11 film 'correct'

  34. ^ Buzz Patterson Dereliction of Duty - Reckless Disregard / Dereliction of Duty / RighTalk Radio
  35. ^ a b c Clinton aide says

    9/11 film 'correct'

  36. ^ Move America Forward
  37. ^ HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE - Conservative News, Views & Books
  38. ^ Horowitz Freedom Center: About Us
  39. ^ National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
  40. ^ Think Progress » Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama
  41. ^ CQ.com
  42. ^ Washington Times - Bill and Dick, Osama and Sandy
  43. ^ Albright letter to Robert Iger, September 5, 2006
  44. ^ The same letter by Albright, hosted on the internet by CNN
  45. ^ The Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Retrieved: September 18, 2006
  46. ^ Statement of Robert S. Mueller: Joint Investigation Into September 11: (published September 26, 2002)
  47. ^ The Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Chapter 1, Section 1.1, page 2, Retrieved: September 16, 2006
  48. ^ Movie & TV News @ IMDb.com - Studio Briefing - 18 September 2006
  49. ^ http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091106/content/rushmakesnews.guest.html
  50. ^ http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/06/bill_clinton_breaks_silence_on_9_11_docudrama
  51. ^ a b http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/albright%20letter.doc
  52. ^ http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/Berger%20letter.pdf
  53. ^ :http://democrats.org/a/p/president_clinton_on_the_path_to_911.html
  54. ^ US Senator Harry Reid for Nevada
  55. ^ a b About Scholastic: News
  56. ^ CrooksandLiars.com article by John Amato on Thursday, September 7th, 2006 at 10:01 PM - PDT
  57. ^ Media Matters - ABC's Path to 9/11 partly based on information from Bush administration PR official
  58. ^ 9/11 Miniseries is Bunk Los Angeles Times, Barbara Bodine, September 8, 2006
  59. ^ ABC's 'Path to 9/11': Bill Clinton's Inconvenient Truth
  60. ^ Disney/ABC gets Sec. of State Albright's name wrong in 9/11 mockumentary - AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth
  61. ^ "Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland: Six Years After 9/11"
  62. ^ Open Letter to ABC: Don't Airbrush 9/11: Leading Historians Call For Cancellation of "Fraudulent" ABC 9/11 Docudrama
  63. ^ Siddiqui, Tabassam. "Privacy office probes records fiasco; Hundreds of medical charts strewn on streets used as props for Toronto shoot of 9/11 movie." Toronto Star, Oct 4, 2005. pg. A.07
  64. ^ Daily Kos: ABC Hits Panic Button? Frantic Re-Write Misfires
  65. ^ Sept. 8 2006 Video at thinkprogress.org: Bill Bennett Says ABC Should ‘Correct Those Inaccuracies’ in Path to 9/11
  66. ^ Matters For America "About Us" page
  67. ^ a b "Misinformer of the Year: ABC". Media Matters for America. December 22, 2006. http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220014. Retrieved on 2007-01-14. 
  68. ^ Anton Chaitkin (September 17, 2006). "Behind the ABC 9/11 Docudrama: The Axis of YWAM". Executive Intelligence Review. http://mathaba.net/news/?x=543208. Retrieved on 2008-01-31. 
  69. ^ "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots". September 11, 2006. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060925/path_to_911. Retrieved on 2007-12-16. "Last June, Cunningham's TFI announced it was producing its first film, mysteriously titled Untitled History Project. "TFI's first project is a doozy," a newsletter to YWAM members read. "Simply being referred to as: The Untitled History Project, it is already being called the television event of the decade and not one second has been put to film yet. Talk about great expectations!" (A web edition of the newsletter was mysteriously deleted last week after its publication by the blogger Digby, but has been cached on Google at the link above)." 
  70. ^ "YWAM and The Path to 9/11". http://www.ywam.org/articles/article.asp?AID=368&bhcp=1. Retrieved on 2007-12-16. "As you probably know, Youth With A Mission and our founder, Loren Cunningham, have come under some intense scrutiny in the media in the past couple of weeks days. I thought you might have some questions arising from the publicity and wanted to help you by providing some answers to help you respond to people around you." 
  71. ^ a b http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701055.html
  72. ^ ABC: 9/11 Program Criticism 'Premature'
  73. ^ "The Path to 9/11" (2006 Docudrama) - SourceWatch
  74. ^ Scheuer v. Clarke by Matthew Continetti
  75. ^ a b Why Does the Left Hate "The Path to 9/11"? by Hugh Hewitt
  76. ^ A compelling "Path to 9-11" by Brent Bozell
  77. ^ ABC airs 9/11 Film -- Contested Scenes Remain, Editor & Publisher, by E&P staff, September 10, 2006
  78. ^ 'Path to 9-11' Tops Monday Viewership by Greg Sheffield
  79. ^ Think Progress
  80. ^ [1] The official website for Blocking The Path to 9/11
  81. ^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12671.html “Who Was Blocking ‘The Path to 9/11’?” by Jeffrey Resner

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Find more about The Path to 9/11 on Wikipedia's sister projects:
Definitions from Wiktionary

Textbooks from Wikibooks

Quotations from Wikiquote

Source texts from Wikisource

Images and media from Commons

News stories from Wikinews

Learning resources from Wikiversity
 

Related in this Category