ABC Defends 9/11 Miniseries

Networks Says Criticisms By Ex-Clinton Staffers Are Premature

(CBS/AP)  ABC defended a miniseries on the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks after Clinton administration officials said it distorts history so drastically that it should be corrected or shelved.

"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," the network said in a statement Thursday.

Former administration officials and Senate Democrats said in letters to the head of the network's parent company that the "The Path to 9/11" was "terribly wrong."

ABC says the movie is a dramatization with fictionalized scenes, CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports, but they also say it's drawn from sources, including the 9/11 Commission report.

Not so fast, says 9/11 commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste.

"They are representing to the world that this is the 9/11 Commission's findings and it ought to be accurate, and it wasn't," Ben-Veniste said.

Former President Clinton, speaking with news reporters after a Democratic fundraiser in Arkansas on Thursday, said he hadn't seen the ABC film.

"But I think they ought to tell the truth, particularly if they are going to claim it is based on the 9/11 commission report," he said. "They shouldn't have scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 report."

Executive producer Marc Platt said editing of the miniseries was going on and "will continue to, if needed until we broadcast," but declined to discuss the specific scenes that were being changed, The New York Times reported Friday.

"From Day 1, we've examined any issue or question that's arisen," Platt said. "And we'll continue to do so until the last possible moment."

The Times, citing Thomas Kean, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant for the miniseries, reported that one scene being changed portrayed Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, hanging up on a CIA officer at a critical moment of a military operation.

Two other scenes under review, according to Kean, portrayed former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright apparently obstructing efforts to capture Osama bin Laden and Mr. Clinton being too distracted by impeachment and his marital problems to focus on bin Laden.

Albright, Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent, The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."

They were joined Thursday by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Charles Schumer of New York and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who sent a joint letter to Iger asking that the broadcast be cancelled.

The two-part miniseries, scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday and Monday, is drawn from interviews and documents including the report of the Sept. 11 commission.

Kean, the former Republican New Jersey governor who led the commission, defended the miniseries.

"It's something the American people should see," he said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" Friday. "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."

Kean said he hoped people would watch the miniseries to "understand better what went on, and hopefully understand what still needs to be done."

The letter writers said the miniseries contained factual errors and that their requests to see it had gone unanswered. They said people familiar with the movie had told them about it, but they didn't name them.

"By ABC's own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong," Lindsey and Band said in their letter. "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

ABC said that for dramatic and narrative purposes "the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression."

"We hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it," ABC said.

In the senators' letter, they questioned the political leanings behind the miniseries.

"Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings," the letter said.

The letter writers pointed out examples of scenes they had been told were in the miniseries but that they said never happened. Albright objected to a scene that she was told showed her insisting on warning the Pakistani government before an air strike on Afghanistan, and that showed her as the one who made the warning.

"The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory," she said.

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials.

"The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote.

The five-hour miniseries is set to run without commercial interruption. Director David Cunningham said it was a massive undertaking, with close to 250 speaking parts, more than 300 sets and a budget of $40 million. Cunningham has said he shot 550 hours of film. The cast includes Harvey Keitel, Patricia Heaton and Donnie Wahlberg.

[ronniehm]

I watched the movie (part 1 so far), and Bill Clinton will be happy to know that I didn't find myself using the characters or dialogue to place blame on him. What I'll remember from the movie is just one massive explosion after another. No one can say that part wasn't true.

[nenochs]

I find it ironic that former Pres. Bill Clinton is only now concerned about truth being presented. My question is: Where was this passion for the truth when the Monica Lewinski scandal broke?

[bbarring]

I did not say obligation, but i did infer that they should act responsibly.

[ronniehm]

ABC has no such obligation. Read the Constitution.

[bbarring]

It is a disservice to the nation for ABC or any organization to deal with 9/11 as an "entertainment" venue. "Responsible" organizations have an obligation to try as hard as they can to tell a factual story. The debate about whether Clinton or anyone else did a good or bad thing should be supported by facts. Any addition of a "fiction" to this story only serves to split us and distract us from what should be our primary goal of bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice and ensuring that we are taking reasonable measures to prevent a repeat. From what I have seen and heard so far, this presentation adds nothing of value that would help us achieve our goals and seems to work against achieving them.

[markg121]

I have just watched the first part of the Path to 9/11 on the BBC here in the UK. Very interesting, but a drama nonetheless. In fact the first image and the last image is that of a disclaimer stating this. There is a story to be told, but why no disquiet (or none heard over this side of the Atlantic) over the United 93 or World Trade Centre movies, which are also categorised as dramas? With a similar subject matter.

The real issue highlighted - certainly in this first part is one of missed opportunities for the US administration to capture Bin Laden. the current administration's facsination with Iraq is preventing the possibility of getting as close again (washington post 09/10/2006).

[steven155]

if we can try to remember that neither the republicans or the democrats are the enemy but that the islamic fundamentalists (terrorists) are,than we can get on to the business of killing them.we are Americans first and we should stand together to the last

[steven155]

President Clinton could have killed bin laden but didnt want to make waves.He worried more about what Europe would think of him than his own countries future saftey.

[steven155]

i dont need to see this show to know that President Clinton didnt do anything after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center,the attack on the Cole and the 1998 bombing of the United States embassy in Africa(both embassy`s)although he did invite Arafat to the White House several times.

[mireason]

RonnieHM--You may be right. ABC may have made a decision based on ratings. If we want to be really cynical, we could suggest that ABC deliberately slanted the story counting on the fact that there would be push-back that would "cause" them to edit the end product to something for which they couldn't get sued, but that would allow them to curry favor with the party in power. Ratings notwithstanding, the original intent that it be distributed to schools demanded a higher standard of accuracy. Many young students lack the critical thinking skills necessary to discern between a fictionalized account and a factual representation. And if it was strictly commercial, then it shouldn't have been given special treatment...it should have had to compete for sponsors and sink or swim on its own merits.

ABC says that they are still editing. Good-oh! The best outcome of this controversy is that it got us talking. We're not likely to get confirmation of any of our speculation from ABC, but I appreciate your comments and for helping me to view this topic, and my thoughts, critically. We made lemonade. Pax vobiscum.

[mustspeak]

Seems to me that all the fearful reactions comming from the Clintons and their friends is a tell-tale sign of their festering guilty consciences; like screaming "I didn't do it!" because someone looked at them. What I heard in an interview with the director on one of my favorite talk shows (thank you, Hugh) was that blame is shared by both administrations as facts are attributed as evenhandedly as was necessary to convey what happened leading up to Septmber 11th.

Let's see the unedited version so we all can sqirm a bit and maybe it will help us as a nation to strengthen our resolve against the REAL enemy.

[ronniehm]

This film, which will contain the disclaimer "not a documentary," may or may not be favorable to one party, but so is a program on global warming. The fact is Bill Clinton is not running for office and neither is George Bush, so I'm very leery of applying campaign advertising rules to everything someone feels may benefit a particular ideology. It's history. Or maybe it's "history." Either way, I don't think censorship or mandatory rebuttles are the way to go. Does al Qaeda get equal time too? Of course not. ABC is not a government-owned network and they have no obligation to be ideology-free. Personally, I think they looked at the ratings over at Fox News and made a business decision.

[mireason]

RonnieHM--I dashed off my response this a.m. and realized afterward that I said something I didn't intend. I don't object to airing anything, as long as it's labeled accurately. I think all partisan political presentations aired within the two months preceding an election should be categorized as campaign-related, and the opposition should have equal time...no matter which party is involved.

I'm not an idealogue. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. I do, however, have a hard time understanding why anyone would object to a request from the people being portrayed that the "docu-drama" not misrepresent the actual events--in this case, as detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report. Ethical fictionalization of historical events doesn't distort history, it personalizes it so that it can be processed emotionally as well as intellectually.

If ABC is going to campaign for Republicans, they should have the guts to call it what it is, and then allow the opposition equal time. That's not censorship. Originally, I didn't call for banning the broadcast, I suggested a panel discussion to accompany it. That would allow the broadcast, but neutralize the partisan content, allowing differing points of view to be discussed. That's the kind of dialogue we need. I have no desire to muzzle or belittle your opinion. I hope you will show me the same courtesy. Reasonable people may disagree without rancor...that's one of the ways we show one another respect.

a product of the abc entertainment division? where in the horror of the 9/11 experience, was there an "entertainment" opportunity?

News; is News; is News! only 5 yrs and its too soon, for "entertainment" status. if this airs, even edited, it will be another horrific 9/11 experience for all Americans to endure watching a horrific news event, made into an entertainment piece. the truth is what we need now, like the kind the NEWS division does so well.

where is Mr. Iger's compassion for the families of the 9/11 victims? the film should be canned for 50 years and then released, if by then we are ready for being entertained with the events that led up to 9/11.

better yet, don't change it and air it on a pay per view channel or cable. but not public airwaves. as a member of the public, i vehemently object to it!!!

[nowayjosay]

I don't need ABC or Disney, just like I don't need
or want Fox, Limpbaugh, O'Leilly and the other
brave neocon liars.

[ronniehm]

NewsJeff, Hillary wanted to be a Senator. The end.

[newsjeff-2009]

If Americans are so upset with Clinton's immoral imperfections, they should realize that yes he did do wrong,he did break God's law about marriage,adultery,lying and a few other things. Americans must also realize that the Bible talks about forgiveness and christian love for sinners who confess their sins. Many other Americans have done many wrong doings long before Clinton was president. Many members of my own family including my parents who were born in the "baby boomer times" of the 1950s and 60s have had divorces,family breakdowns,drug abuse problems,multiple marriages, etc. Many conservative news people were probably dissapointed when Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton choose to keep their marriage together. I know it sounds like I am catagorizing people based on their age group, but so what. Baby-boomers and generation xers(my age group between 18 to early 30s.) these two age groups are quick to get divorces or leave their husbands or wives when their is the least little problem. I look at Hillary and Bill as what more Americans should do "stick together and put your family first and forgive one another in your family even when they hurt you". Hillary I am sure was hurt by What Bill did, but she loves him and forgave him for what he did. Americans of this generation and other baby boomers have to learn that the only way to accomplish great things in America is to "work together", not turn and run.

[ronniehm]

mireason, yes, let's have a dialogue that's reasoned, starting with more reasonable definitions. Censorship is telling people WHEN they can say something just as well as is telling them what they can say, so you support ceonsorship. An example of a fictionalized event is showing a fabricated newspaper in your film or using video of an interview with a soldier but editing it in such a way that the soldier sues you for misrepresenting your opinions. I'm sure there is dialogue in Path to 911 that isn't 100% accurate (fabricated sounds so much more devious), but if people like Albright are complaining about THREE SCENES in a SIX-HOUR movie it sounds like the entire movie is at about 99% right on. Michael Moore should be so fictionalized that people only whine about 1% of his movies.

[mireason]

Would I object to Fahrenheit 911 being aired on ABC? If it were prime time, uninterrupted by commercials, and between now and the election, you bet I would! It would qualify as campaigning as surely as this movie will. I think it's time to start holding networks, politicians and political parties to a higher standard so that we can attract people to public office without the threat of character assassination.

Censorship? Absolutely not! I have no objection to this movie airing...I only object to the TIMING of the airing, and the characterization of it as public service, and the fact that it is being accorded added significance and support by the network in making it commercial-free. Fahrenheit 911 doesn't meet the standard for accuracy either. But it was never portrayed as anything but the work of a single partisan voice. In addition, while it was unabashedly biased in the content and conclusions, it didn't fictionalize events. Let's try to have a dialogue that is reasoned - not a political diatribe.

[rcochran48]

FU*K ABC. There a buch of Nazi who are racist against blacks, *** and I guess npow there right wing kooks! I will call my cable company to see if I can have them removed-i dont even want them in my selection.
Posted by creoleguy32 at 06:10 PM : Sep 08, 2006

That's right Bucko play that race card on the flop ;-)
If all else fails they are racist's huh?

R