ABC = All But Caving? (To right wingers)

Predictably, this is a story that's not going away anytime soon. Former Clinton administration officials are pissed, as they should be. Many people are deriding ABC for "interpreting" and "dramatizing" events on 9-11. As if 9-11 requires dramatizing.

Clinton's staff fired off a letter to ABC demanding certain portions of the movie be changed, including one scene depicting Clinton as being too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to go after Islamic terrorists who blew up embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Clinton's former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, and former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke are similarly outraged.

To wit, Clarke's response:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL (that's Usama bin Laden, as Clarke refers to him - RJ).

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

##

There you have it, from Clarke, who was counterterrorism chief under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II until shortly after 9-11, when he quit in disgust.

Another amusing anecdote, this one from Tucker Carleson, a conservative that I normally admire (I occasionally watch his show on MSNBC). As reported in Media Matters today, Tucker wants this argument both ways. Well, he can't have it.

Here's what Media Matters had to say:
During a discussion with Media Matters for America president and CEO David Brock on the September 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson falsely claimed that when CBS chose not to air the 2003 biopic, The Reagans, he had "sort of agreed" that the move constituted "censorship," just as he now argues that it will be "censorship" if ABC is pressured into not running The Path to 9/11. In fact, in 2003, Carlson specifically denied that CBS' decision to pull The Reagans was "censorship," saying that the use of the word in the context of CBS' Reagan movie "devalue[d] the term" and defending CBS' decision to pull the film because it was "inaccurate."

##

What the fuck, Tuck?!? You're better than that.

Oh, and one more thing - yesterday I wrote of the urban legend that persists that Clinton could have had bin Laden. The source of this bullshit is Fateh Erwa, a known liar. The Washington Times, one of the most radical right-wing papers in the country, had this to say about Erwa and his allegations:

"No one should believe these allegations" from "Fateh Erwa, a Sudanese intelligence officer known for his penchant to deceive, that there was an offer to hand bin Laden over to the United States."

Folks, if the Washington Times is saying it, trust it, because that paper never, EVER misses an opportunity to make Clinton look bad.

Enough said.

ABC needs to do the responsible thing, and pull or significantly alter this movie. My prediction? The network will puss out, because all of the major media outlets (excluding Fox News, for obvious reasons) are afraid of being labeled "liberal" and of getting attacked by the right wing distortion machine.

The movie's a disgrace, and so is Tom Kean for being involved in it.

Lies and distortions should be called out as lies and distortions, no matter when they happen. They can't just be bad when it's politically convenient, Mr. Carlson.