dogjones
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,303
I've been reading Slate's graphic interpretation of the 9/11 commission report. It is very, very good.
Brown
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 12,984
I've been reading this as well. It is a pretty good summary of the report.
The so-called "docudrama" to be aired on ABC (USA) television on September 10 and 11, however, may not be as carefully crafted. In the interest of drama, certain scenes are included that are wholly fictional and inaccurate. The one most infuriating to Democrats is one in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. In effect, Berger is told that all he has to do is say the word, and they will kill Bin Laden. But Berger is too chicken to give the word.
This event never happened, according to Richard Clarke and members of the 9/11 Commission. And the implication of the scene, that Clinton's administration could have assuredly killed Bin Laden, but due to fear or carelessness let him go, is false.
Berger is of course mad as hell. (Wouldn't you be?)
The official report does not say that any operatives were ever poised to assassinate Bin Laden, and in any event, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided not to go forward with an assassination plot: "Tenet told us [the Commission] that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation." (Report p. 114; see the Slate document p. 110).
Also, the "docudrama" suggests that the impeachment fiasco seriously impaired Clinton's ability to act. The Commission's report (pp. 117-18) mentioned that Clinton instructed his advisers to ignore the impeachment matter, saying "that they [the Clinton administration] were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." Every aide testified that any given advice was based upon national security considerations, and the Commission "found no reason to question their statements." In addition, Clinton had other, apparently higher priorities, such as possible war with Serbia and airstrikes against Iraq. (Report, pp. 348-49; see the Slate document p. 111).
But this isn't such a big deal, is it? After all, so-called right wing commentators aren't suggesting that these fictionalized events are factual, are they? Of course they're not suggesting that.
Rather, they're saying so quite explicitly.
Link to Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...09/06/AR2006090601819.html?nav=rss_world/asia
The so-called "docudrama" to be aired on ABC (USA) television on September 10 and 11, however, may not be as carefully crafted. In the interest of drama, certain scenes are included that are wholly fictional and inaccurate. The one most infuriating to Democrats is one in which Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton, declines to give Central Intelligence Agency operatives the authority to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. In effect, Berger is told that all he has to do is say the word, and they will kill Bin Laden. But Berger is too chicken to give the word.
This event never happened, according to Richard Clarke and members of the 9/11 Commission. And the implication of the scene, that Clinton's administration could have assuredly killed Bin Laden, but due to fear or carelessness let him go, is false.
Berger is of course mad as hell. (Wouldn't you be?)
The official report does not say that any operatives were ever poised to assassinate Bin Laden, and in any event, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided not to go forward with an assassination plot: "Tenet told us [the Commission] that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation." (Report p. 114; see the Slate document p. 110).
Also, the "docudrama" suggests that the impeachment fiasco seriously impaired Clinton's ability to act. The Commission's report (pp. 117-18) mentioned that Clinton instructed his advisers to ignore the impeachment matter, saying "that they [the Clinton administration] were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing." Every aide testified that any given advice was based upon national security considerations, and the Commission "found no reason to question their statements." In addition, Clinton had other, apparently higher priorities, such as possible war with Serbia and airstrikes against Iraq. (Report, pp. 348-49; see the Slate document p. 111).
But this isn't such a big deal, is it? After all, so-called right wing commentators aren't suggesting that these fictionalized events are factual, are they? Of course they're not suggesting that.
Rather, they're saying so quite explicitly.
Link to Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...09/06/AR2006090601819.html?nav=rss_world/asia