There have been several comments about the ABC "Path to 9/11" Miniseries, to this effect:
Rather Dan Ratherish, eh? Fake but accurate?
But there is a world of difference between a story that is true (where was the President in May through October of 1972? EVEN HE has not represented that he attended to his guard duties then) - but that used an unverifiable but content correct document potentially forged by a source other than the news station using it...
AND A STORY that presents critical content as true, that is not true, and which is created, produced and manufactured by the station itself.
There is more below the fold. Lot's more. And some of it may surprise you -- you will certainly have plenty to share with ABC when you call. And please keep in mind the very much non exaggerated last two letters of the title as you read on.
What Republican and hardly non partisan Commission Co-chair Thomas Kean was referring to
with his "reasonably accurate," but still unacceptable, characterization, was the overall account by ABC.
With respect to the key incident implicating both Berger and Clinton directly, Kean spoke about as clearly as he could. It was a "fictionalized account," "representative of a series of events combined into one," different events that when framed in that one way, convey something with a completely different meaning than what actually happened.
This is the republican Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the number one and number two terrorism experts in the country, Clarke, and Roger Cressey -- the ones who had direct knowledge -- calling the ABC representation a fabrication.
NSA Sandy Berger, WHO MET PERSONALLY WITH CONDI RICE IN JANUARY, 2001, to warn her of the growing gravity of al-Qaeda and that her administration "would be spending most of their time dealing with al-Qaeda," also flatly contradicts it. As does anyone else with direct knowledge.
It is perhaps, in partisan terms, the most politically important part of the story. And it is fiction, presented as if fact. In other words, A LIE.
In essence, given that it presents critical events as fact, which, are, in fact, fiction, The ABC story is a lie.
Another odd thing is the heavy negative emphasis on the Clinton administration, given the actual facts, as opposed to the spin and clear desire to believe otherwise:
Sure, criticism of the Clinton adminstration on this issue can be found, in hindsight. Just like "criticism can be found of the Bush Administration, in hindsight." Right?
Not exactly. Hindsight is 20/20. It doesn't make everything that happened when it happened, indicative of poor decision making at the time. It also doesn't do the opposite; that is, it doesn't render minimal focus on the issue as somehow rational because although we knew we are at great risk, in the words of President Bush and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice both, "we did not know where, when, or how."
The facts are incontrovertible. The Clinton Administration paid far more attention to the al-Qaeda threat and to counterterrorism than the Bush Administration did. Here also are two broad instances in which republicans reigned in Clinton's efforts to expand anti terrorism efforts. More importantly, as Unclaimed Territory extensively and persuasively illustrates, there are no instances of the opposite.
The Clinton administration, although it did not always speak publicly about it, met and discussed strategy regarding al-Qaeda routinely, and when the threat levels were elevated or data or chatter otherwise indicated increased risk, addressed the issue almost daily. This never happened in the first eight months of the Bush Administration leading up to September 11, 2001. In fact, despite the compelling need, just the opposite occurred.
The fact is, again, that while in hindsight issue can certainly be taken, the Clinton administration focused more on terrorism than the Bush administration ever did. And it did so, even while both the threat, and our growing awareness of the threat -- particularly in the aftermath of two sweeping Commssion reports, the bombing of the USS Cole in the autum of 2000, and greatly increased intelligence chatter around and after the turn of the decade -- were all greater as the new administration came into office.
In fact, the republican head of one of those Commissions, the Chairman of the National Commision on Terrorism and subsequent Ambassador to Iraq, Paul Bremer, on February 26 of 2001 said of the Bush Administration, that it is "paying no attention" to the terrorism issue, and that "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, `Oh my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this.'"
"Oh my God" indeed. The Bush administration paid almost no attention to the issue. Even by Condi Rice's own 9/11 Commission testimony, testimony that in general was frequently contradicted by the facts, al-Qaeda was barely ever discussed in principals meetings on national security isssues.
A "comprehensive" speech on national security, prepared by then Bush Administration National Security Advisor Rice -- the same one warned by the previous NSA Sandy Berger that al-Qaeda was a vast and growing threat and to focus heavily on it -- to be delivered September 11, 2001, paid scant attention to the issue of sovereignless, international terrorism. It reportedly referenced the al-Qaeda threat in what would have amounted to a few seconds, in what was otherwise a speech projected to run upwards of 30 to 45 minutes.
And yet republicans still criticize not the Bush administration, but the Clinton Administration for its handling of the grave al-Qaeda issue, when the Clinton administration paid more direct attention to it, and specifically warned the incoming administration to pay even more attention to it. Not to mention the fact that they turned over to them and highlighted THIS document.
It reads, in part:
In order to implement the overall global strategy while undermining the ability of al-Qa'ida to utlize Afghanistan, CIA has prepared a program that focuses on eliminating it as a safe haven, disrupting the Mujahidin infrastructure that connects Afghanistan to the global network, and changing the operational environment inside of Afghanistan.
Or how's this for a "pre 9/11 mindset:"
The United States' goal is to reduce the al-Qida network to the point where it no longer poses a serious threat to our security or that of other governments...
Towards the end, the United States has developed a comprehenseive and coordinated strategy that employs a variet of tools, including; diplomacy, covert action, public informatino and media, law enforcement, intelligence collection, foreign assistance, financial regulation enforcement,and military means, to effect al-Qida to its core.
.
These Principles were adopted by the new administration. After September 11, 2001 (in the President's speech to the nation 9 days later). And have not been sufficiently pursued since as we over focus on Iraq - a country which was not one of the forty or so referenced in that same report as containing a terrorist cell structure in its midst.
Or consider THIS document, an urgent warning from counterterrorism head Richard Clarke in January of 2001, stating:
We urgently need a principals level review of the al-Qida network.
In the original, the word "urgently" is both underlined, and italicized.
Yet according to the Commission, despite repeated requests by Clarke, such a meeting -- just a few months in the wake of the bombing of the USS Cole by al-Qaeda -- one urgently requested in the first few days of the incoming administration by the nation's counterterrorism czar, was not had until nearly eight months later.
A staff report, discussed at length in the 9/11 Commission Hearings, concluded, stunningly, that:
Clarke asked on several occasions for early principals meetings on these issues and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled.
No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4th, 2001. Rice and Hadley said this was because the Deputies Committee needed to work through many issues relating to the new policy on al Qaeda. The Principals Committee did meet frequently before September 11th on other subjects, Rice told us, including Russia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East peace process. Rice and Hadley told us that although the Clinton administration had worked very hard on the al Qaeda program, its policies on al Qaeda, quote, "had run out of gas,"
Apart from summary recitation of the need to "come up with a plan," such review that Ms. Rice in her testimony acknowledges was required, was simply never formalized and turned into a top down level focus on the problem.
And then there is of course the August 6 PDB, delivered just before the President went on a nearly one month long vacation, that in its very title warned of the potential imminence of a strike. It is short, to the point, and very clear.
Yet, as Rice's speech scheduled for September 11 clearly shows (and which has been reported on but apparently never fully revealed, although evidence to the contrary would be welcomed), the issue still was simply not consideredthat important.
At the same time, there was intelligence information out there that agents were bringing in (let alone phone calls from flight schools asking about the oddity of new, foreign, Middle Eastern students asking to learn how to fly and not to land) that, because there was no top down focus, was routinely being ignored or dismissed.
And yet somehow, despite the clear fact that in the face of lesser imminent threat, and lesser (albeit growing) awareness of the severity of the threat, and the fact that the Clinton administration STILL paid more attention to this issue at almost every turn, this issue has been turned onto its head, and the glaring spotlight of monday morning quarterbacking, complete with history that as presented is simply made up, has of course, once again, been turned onto the Clinton administration.
The ABC film, despite being, in critical respects, a lie, has been called "pro-American." Pro American has become the new rhetoric for "Pro right wing republican." Just like Patriotism, quite the opposite of what it was in the Clinton administration, now means, "support rather than criticism of the current administration," rather than simple love of country and love of the principles and ideals for which it stands.
And ABC has become as complicit in this as anybody. Except for Fox, which is in a league of its own.
Remember KISS? "Keep it Simple Stupid"?
ITMS: "It's the Media, Stupid."