The show is called "The Path to 9/11" and it is going to air Sunday, September 10, and Monday, September 11.
Here's one conservative already drooling over it:
Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.
This is the first Hollywood production I've seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden's house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and
The producer of the show, Cyrus Nowrasteh, makes it clear he has a pro-Republican point of view in this interview:
FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?
Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."
We know this is simply bullshit. Yet ABC is airing this propaganda and will undoubtedly promote the hell out of it in the next two weeks.
Isn't it great working against the stacked deck of the corporate media? Ahhhhhh .... Democracy!
"The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.
So who is the greater threat to Democracy? Terrorists or media consolidation?
Our elected president, Al Gore, just said today:
EDINBURGH, Scotland - Former Vice President Al Gore said Sunday ever-tighter political and economic control of the media is a major threat to democracy.
Democracy is under attack," Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.
William Rivers Pitt has an excellent refutation of all this "blame Clinton for 9/11" b.s. over at Truthout, and even more truthiness compiled in a "datadump" over at Democratic Underground right now. It's something we should all brush up on to face the coming deluge.
Because heads up, folks! It's an election year, and the propaganda is gonna come fast and furious! From all sides, and from all corners of the corporate media universe.
It's gonna be a bumpy ride.