Did ABC Edit “The Path to 9/11?”

Posted by on 9/6/2006

Hugh Hewitt

The Disney execs met all through the weekend – unheard of in this business – debating what changes would be made and what concessions should be given. Here is what looks to be the conclusion:

- There will be a handful of tweaks made to a few scenes.
- They are minor, and nuance in most cases – a line lift here, a tweak to the edit there.
- There are 900 screeners out there. When this airs this weekend, there will be a number of people who will spend their free evenings looking for these changes and will be hard pressed to identify them. They are that minor.
- The average viewer would not be able to tell the difference between the two versions.
- The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact.

The story here is the backlash that the Disney/ABC execs experienced was completely unexpected and is what caused them to question themselves and make these changes at all. Had this been the Bush Admin pressuring, they wouldn’t have even taken the call. The execs and studio bosses are dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. They had no idea any of this could happen. As I understand this, the lawyers and production team spent literally months corroborating every story point down to the sentence. The fact that they were the attacked and vilified by their “own team” took them completely by surprise; this is the first time they’ve been labeled right-wing, conservative conspiracists.

The scramble caused by this backlash was so all consuming that the execs spent their holiday weekend behind closed door meetings and revamped their ad campaign. But at the end of their mad scramble, they found only a handful of changes they could make and still be true to the events. The changes are done only to appease the Clinton team – to be able to say they made changes. But the blame on the Clinton team is in the DNA of the project and could not be eradicated without pulling the entire show. A $40 million investment on the part of ABC is enough to stem even Bill Clinton’s influence.

An exclamation point on this event is the fact that Oliver Stone will endorse the project this week. Not known for his conservative leanings, he loves the project. Perhaps this and the fact that the production company that made Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” are endorsing it would underline just how far out or touch and scared the Clinton Admin is about the revelation of the facts as portrayed in this project. Is it just that Clinton is continuing to re-define his legacy? Or is it his fears for this election cycle and 2008? Or both?

Thanks for getting the word out. It’s made a significant difference in getting this broadcasted as it should be.

As you can imagine, this has set off a tidal wave on the left. I can’t understand what they are so upset about. This is only movie. Just as Fahrenheit 9/11 was just a movie that happened to come out just before the 2004 election.

Democrats, Energy Prices, Follywood, National News, Presidential Election '08, State/Local Elections '06, Terrorism

11 Comments.

  1. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 09:28 AM

    So it’s biased agaist Clinton a little bit…so what?

    Christ people, Right AND Left…it’s just a movie.

  2. Peejz 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 09:41 AM

    You should be telling the left that Mike. BTW, I don’t think this is biased against Clinton. If I understand the promos and the actual critics that saw the film, it sticks to the 9/11 Commission report. I will watch it.

    Do you think they will have a scene with Sandy stuffing his pants?

  3. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 09:52 AM

    “I don’t think this is biased against Clinton.”

    “In particular, some critics ” including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar ” questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.”

    “…in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.

    “It didn’t happen,” Mr. Clarke said. “There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.”

    Mr. Clarke, an on-air consultant to ABC News, said he was particularly shocked by a scene in which it seemed Clinton officials simply hung up the phone on an agent awaiting orders in the field. “It’s 180 degrees from what happened,” he said. “So, yeah, I think you would have to describe that as deeply flawed.””em>

  4. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 09:54 AM

    But still…I say…so what? It’s just a movie.

    As long as they present it as fiction, and not a documentary, then I’m cool with the distortions and artistic license taken.

  5. Peejz 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 10:07 AM

    Really? Well, pages 110 through 115 of the 9/11 Commission report quite disagreed. In this section, subtitled “The CIA Develops a Capture Plan,”the commissioners chronicled a 1997 – 1998 strategy to capture or kill bin Laden in Afghanistan:

    A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.
    By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval.

    Does it sound like Nowrasteh “completely made up”this plan? As to who stopped this covert action, the Commission wasn’t sure:

    Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG [Counterterrorist Security Group headed by Clarke] saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed”and predicted the principals would not approve it. “Jeff”thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though perhaps on Tenet’s advice. Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off”the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.
    Hmmm. So, the 9/11 Commission wasn’t really sure who was responsible for putting the kibosh on this plan. However, given Clarke’s lack of credibility, and the fact that Sandy Berger was so intent on covering up the missteps of the Clinton administration that he actually stole documents from the National Archive just prior to testifying before the Commission, their take on this matter seems easily discounted.

  6. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 10:45 AM

    “I pointed out the fact that the scene involving Afghanistan and the attempt to get bin Laden is a composite“

    Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission.

    ——————————————–

    Composite - made up of disparate or separate parts or elements

  7. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 10:47 AM

    Like I said; “so what” if the filmakers use distortions or artistic license…IT’S JUST A MOVIE.

  8. Peejz 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 11:01 AM

    distortions? Hardly, based on what you have said!

  9. San Francisco Liberal 9/6/2006 at September 6, 2006 - 11:32 AM

    Peejz, there never was a moment in real life where our troops were poised on the ground, as depicted in the movie, moments away from moving in and capturing OBL.

    Creating a scene where troops ARE poised on the ground moments away from capturing OBL is distorting reality.

    Can you agree with me on that?