"The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded. Rush Limbaugh, who refers to Nowrasteh as "a friend of mine", reviews the action:
So the CIA, the Northern Alliance, surrounding a house where bin Laden is in Afghanistan, they’re on the verge of capturing, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to proceed.
So they phoned Washington. They phoned the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refused to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout if the mission should go wrong, and if civilians were harmed…Now, the CIA agent in this is portrayed as being astonished. “Are you kidding?” He asked Berger over and over, “Is this really what you guys want?”
Berger then doesn’t answer after giving his first admonition, “You guys go in on your own. If you go in we’re not sanctioning this, we’re not approving this,” and Berger just hangs up on the agent after not answering any of his questions.
ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:
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 no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
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.
In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh."
Oh and to add to the lies, Scholastic is actually publishing a discussion guide for kids.
What's sickening about this is the website itself. It claims the documentary is "based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission" which it clearly isn't. It also mentions questions in the discussion guides like "is there a way to win the war on terror?" "Does the media help or hinder our national security?" It's like the wingnuts are intent on training kids to spout the right talking points just before the election.
More on the lies here
UPDATE: New York Congresswoman writes in, write a letter to ABC.
UPDATE: More facts.. er. . . lies, here we find out that ABC's docudrama blames the Washington Post for exposing the U.S. surveilance of Bin Laden. It was the Washington Times that did this, not the Post. There's a big difference between the Posts fairly liberal reporting and the Moony Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment