Decision ‘08

About That Docudrama

Okay, fair is fair (are you listening, Anonymous?). Think Progress and Richard Clarke apparently had a good point with their objection to the scene where Sandy Berger is shown dithering while the CIA has bin Laden in its sights. Earlier, I took them to task for what I saw as an unwillingness to face the failures of Clarke and Berger, and I stand by that part of my judgment, but to my dismay, this report in CQ confirms to my satisfaction that the scene is in the movie, and it’s as described, and it is in fact fictional:

…Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.

Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.

Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”

The fact that Ben-Veniste and Berger are hardly disinterested parties isn’t relevant. We don’t need to play games with 9/11; it’s already the most dramatic event of our lifetimes. The clincher for me:

Neither Berger nor Ben-Veniste was consulted on the film. Kean, however, is an official adviser; he says the incident was a fictionalized composite. It was “representative of a series of events compacted into one,” he replied to Ben-Veniste at the time. In a phone interview a few days later, he added, “It’s reasonably accurate.” And he offered a prediction that the show will “get just as many howls from Republicans.”

Again, the partisan aspect interests me not at all; this is 9/11, and ‘reasonably accurate’ isn’t good enough. Either go completely fiction or stick to the facts. This sounds an awful lot like the Dan Rather excuse for the National Guard fiasco (that the essence of the story was true, even if the details were fabricated), and I’m not interested in this sort of clever parsing of words.

I understand the need to do composite scenes and characters in media with a limited duration, but this is going a bit far. I’ll probably still watch it, but my enthusiasm has dimmed considerably.

UPDATE 10:38 a.m.: To be sure, the essence of the charge IS true (i.e., that senior Clinton officials were too nervous to pull the trigger on more than one occasion), and as Macsmind points out, the 9/11 Commission Report does give some credence to the general point:

…[Y]ou can’t hide the facts forever, as the 9/11 Commission Report stated Clinton had his chance, but blew it off:

“The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found.

“Having a chance to get [bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry,” a CIA unit chief wrote to a colleague, adding that Tenet “finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying ‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get [bin Laden].”

In fact I’m told that there will even be some appearances by a couple of CIA ops who - in spite of Richard Clarke’s denial - WERE on the ground that day in Afghanistan surrounding the safehouse where Osama Bin Laden was believed to be holding up. They would sure like Clarke to meet them personally and tell them they weren’t there.

Compare this to the scene as reported by Editor & Publisher:

Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch-or-kill job anyway, hoping for approval once it’s clear they have their man. One night, they call Langley — they are ready to get him. “Do we have clearance?” they ask. Berger says he doesn’t have authority, he would have to check, can’t be sure, etc.

A CIA official tells Berrger the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA says it’s never 100%. With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to give the order. Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?

At that point, the phone signal dies from Afghanistan — or Berger hangs up, it’s hard to tell — and the operatives abroad pack up and leave.

Again, the question arises: when the truth is so damning, why these little embellishments?

I should point out in fairness that the Editor & Publisher review does state that the drama “is ambitious and striking in execution, often relying on handheld cameras, tight close-ups and creative visuals.”

Sigh…okay, I’m back on for watching, but I’ll be watching with a skeptical eye…

37 Responses to “About That Docudrama”

1 Gwedd Says:
September 5th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Comrades,

Rather Dan Ratherish, eh? Fake but accurate?

My biggest complaint with Mssr. Berger is that he willingly stole documents from the National Archives. He admitted it, and he admitted destroying them. No one will ever know just what those documents were, what they contained. His actions are beyond the pale to me, as an historian, as someone who researches history to arrive at a truth as best as can be obtained. Now, a portion of the truth of an American Presidency will be forever lost. It’s akin to the infamous 18min gap in the Nixon Tapes. Doesn’t matter the motives or intents. History was destroyed, and our understanding of what transpired will be forever flawed by those actions.

Berger should be in prison, just as Nixon’s staffers were.

Respects,

Gwedd
2 too many steves Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 5:54 am
See, I understand the concepts of poetic license and dramatization; they are necessary tools the story-teller uses to make important but, dramatically speaking, boring parts interesting. BUT, when the story teller changes the FACTS, well, then, criticism is justified. That is why (lowercase) right-thinking people properly rejected Michael Moore’s “documentaries” and Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” argument as fiction.

It is still early for a final decision but I’ve adjusted the odds that I’ll watch this production to less than 50%.
3 Anonymous Liberal Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 8:48 am
I am listening, and I appreciate your willingness to revisit your original post. That’s why I read this blog. You’re persuadable by facts. If you’re interested, my own (admittedly snarky) take on the issue is here.
4 TheOrginals Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:10 am
It’s sad when the right wingers and Clinton haters feel the have need to lie about Sandy Berger in comment sections of blogs.

Gwedd asserts: “No one will ever know just what those documents were, what they contained” and “Now, a portion of the truth of an American Presidency will be forever lost.”

The truth is what Berger had were copies, not the originals, and the National Archives still retains those originals. Feel free to check with them if you are so inclined.

This does not remove the stain to Mr. Bergers reputation for removing those copies. That Gwedd chooses to stain his or her own reputation by lying about it is unfortunate and sad, but not suprising.
5 Mark Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:23 am
Well, it’s not so clearcut that he only took copies:

According to the charges, Berger — between September 2 and October 2, 2003 — “knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places,” such as his private Washington office.

Berger’s associates admit he took five copies of an after-action report detailing the 2000 millennium terror plot from the Archives. The aides say Berger returned to his office, discovered that three of the copies appeared to be duplicates and cut them up with scissors.

The revelations were a dramatic change from Berger’s claim last year that he had made an “honest mistake” and either misplaced or unintentionally threw the documents away.

When Archives officials contacted him after they realized documents were missing, Berger told them about the two copies he had, and returned them, along with his handwritten notes, officials said.
6 Balloon Juice Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:37 am
[…] Let’s say off the bat that somebody will get fired for this. After ABC has to eat its $30 million investment they might sack whoever decided to aggressively promote a fictionalization of the events leading to 9/11, written by a known conservative activist and promoted exclusively to rightwing blogs and allied news outlets like Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax. Sensible managers would cut loose the genius who decided to chase the evaporating FOX News demographic and influence an election with blatantly untrue efforts to pass of blame to the previous administration. Glenn Greenwald has a thorough rundown, of course, and via Glen I will take this opportunity to wholly agree with Mark Coffey at Decision ‘08: […]
7 TheOrginals Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Mark,

Your cite does not lend any credence to your assertion “Well, it’s not so clearcut that he only took copies” so prehaps you meant to cite a different article.
8 macsmind Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Hold that thought Mark. In spite of Clarke’s denials, there WERE unit ops on the ground in Afghanistan, I know, I’m related to one of them. In fact I’ve emailed Clarke and challenged him to challenge those who were there in person. Still waiting for the answer.

Some of us have more than just a Jason Leopold knowledge of things.
9 Mark Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Well, I’m certainly not in a position to know, and I’m not denying your personal knowledge, but the set of circumstances laid out in the film (bin Laden in sights, phone goes dead while waiting for response from Berger) certainly sounds very dubious, and it didn’t come out of the 9/11 Commission Report, which the drama is purportedly based upon…
10 Mark Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 10:52 am
TheOrginals, I think there is some ambiguity there…nevertheless, I don’t want to overstress the point; as you rightly say, he has a well-deserved stain on his reputation, regardless…
11 Arne Langsetmo Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Gwedd said:

My biggest complaint with Mssr. Berger is that he willingly stole documents from the National Archives. He admitted it, and he admitted destroying them. No one will ever know just what those documents were, what they contained.

This is simply not true. The archives people have said that nothing was lost.

History was destroyed, and our understanding of what transpired will be forever flawed by those actions.

Berger should be in prison, just as Nixon’s staffers were.

Rosemary Woods never went to prison.

Cheers,
12 Dmac Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Woods was hardly in the same position as the former National Security Advisor was - that is a false analogy in the grossest sense. Additionally, Berger has never fully explained why he felt obliged to take the docs in the first place - which only lends credence to the opinion that he didn’t wish to be embarassed by them at a later date.
13 mtl Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Has anybody explained ‘why’ he took the documents?
14 mtl Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Wonder if they mention clarke’s prescience in his assessment of the dangers posed to the 96 Atlanta games.

Afterall, where Condi was vexed for saying ‘no one could imagine 9/11′, and then Clarke said he forsaw the potential…

A good follow up question that could have been asked to Clarke:

After seeing the potential for a hi-jacked plane being used as a weapon against the Olympics in 96, waht other measures did you take, as head of counter-terrorism between 96 and 9/11?
15 mtl Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
…including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.

The same Cohen who spoke of 140,000 albanians being murdered? Where are the bodies?

or the same Albright who was paying NK to stop their nuclear pursuits, and continuuing with the payments after discovering they were not honoring their deal?
16 The Heretik » Blog Archive » Let Them Eat Docudrama Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
[…] Maybe Dan Rather will have something to say. The Path to 9/11, the docudrama that features more drama than docu, is getting docked points for accuracy.Thomas Kean, Republican Chairman of the September Eleventh Commission insists one scene in particular doesn’t martyr the truth too much: “[Kean admits]the incident was a fictionalized composite. It was “representative of a series of events compacted into one.” The scene in question suggests troops were on the ground with bin Laden in sight ready to get blown away but everybody in the Clinton admin blew off acting. Okay, enough already: “this is 9/11, and ‘reasonably accurate’ isn’t good enough. Either go completely fiction or stick to the facts.” Now everybody who bashed Rather for being fake and inaccurate can say this douchey drama is fake , but accurate. […]
17 Mark Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Arne, not true; Berger admits to cutting up three documents, but they were duplicates of other items…thus, methinks, the confusion over whether he took all copies or just some copies and some originals…
18 mtl Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Arne,

good use of the bold face, but why did you highlight the ‘admitted destroying them’ and then in the following sentence say:

“This is simply not true. The archives people have said that nothing was lost.”

The implication is that Sandy Berger risked his career to destroy something that could not be hidden. The fact remains that a former NSA head, was destroying documents pertaining to their role in 9/11, while a national inquiry was being made.

If Condi had done the same thing, I don’t think the WH would get a pass from you on the same grounds you seem to defend Berger with.
19 mikebdot Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Have there been any chances to remove Osama from existence since 9/11? Tora Bora is a supposed example. Any others? So, in the few years we actually thought he mattered prior to 9/11 (under Clinton) we (supposedly) drew a bead on him four times in a period of 8 months? And, now, I’m supposed to believe we have done so exactly once since then? If he wasn’t at Tora Bora, exactly zero times? Has our intelligence gathering suffered that much or do we just really not care that much about him? Or, was the supposed intelligence that solid at the time? If it was as solid as the docudrama makes it sound, why not hire back the old administration’s intelligence gatherers and use the “will” I keep hearing so much about to wipe him out!

I honestly don’t understand what the commotion is about. So what if Berger let some opportunities slip past. It’s been done before and it’s been done since. Humans make mistakes. The threat obviously wasn’t understood at the time, especially by the Republican party (as Glenn pointed out today). And yes, Berger deserves legitimate criticism, but at least have it be based in some amount of facts. Even the report says there were concerns about the intelligence. Were the concerns solely from Berger? Who else suspected foul intelligence? Who in the “military”? Attempting to shine light on those questions would be far more beneficial than [what appear to be] tall tales.
20 Michael Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
WRT: The Berger document issue, it’s detailed in this WaPo story, which states:

The documents that were removed were copies; the National Archives retained the originals.

But I have to agree with the overall sentiment, especially having lived in NYC (Manhattan, specifically) for 11 years up to & through the event in question. If I were to create such a piece, I would make damn sure to avoid any revisionist history pitfalls, if even the appearance of them. I am reminded of what Oliver Stone said immediately after JFK opened — that he made the profound mistake of not clearly stating the film was a “What If” interpretation historical events, and not the event itself. (Please do not mistake this for anything beyond my sensitivity to the portrayal of significant events — tragedies, truly — in US history; it is not an apology for Stone or conspiracy theories in general.)
21 not the senator Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Tell you what. I’d accept the ‘composite’ nature of the ‘facts’ if there was also some reference that even Clinton’s modest efforts to go after Bin Ladin were attacked by Republicans. That he was accused of ‘wagging the dog’ to distract attention from Lewinsky. There was little or no Republican support for going after Al Queda. So to just blame Clinton for ignoring the threat is playing lloose with the historical truth.
22 Ivan Carter Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
There have been several comments about the ABC “Path to 9/11″ Miniseries, to this effect:

Rather Dan Ratherish, eh? Fake but accurate?

But there is a world of difference between a story that is true (where was the President in May through October of 1972? EVEN HE has not represented that he attended to his guard duties then) - but that used an unverifiable but content correct document that was potentially forged by a source other than the news station using it…

AND A STORY that presents critical content as true, that is not true, and which is created, produced and manufactured by the station itself.
23 Ivan Carter Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
What Republican and hardly non partisan Commission Co-chair Thomas Kean was referring to with his “reasonably accurate,” but still unacceptable, characterization, was the overall account by ABC.

With respect to the key incident implicating both Berger and Clinton directly, Kean spoke about as clearly as he could. It was a “fictionalized account,” “representative of a series of events combined into one,” different events that when framed in that one way, convey something with a completely different meaning than what actually happened.

This is the republican Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, as well as the number one and number two terrorism experts in the country, Clarke, and Roger Cressey — the ones who had direct knowledge — calling the ABC representation a fabrication.

NSA Sandy Berger, WHO MET PERSONALLY WITH CONDI RICE IN JANUARY, 2001, to warn her of the growing gravity of al-Qaeda and that her administration “would be spending most of their time dealing with al-Qaeda,” also flatly contradicts it. As does anyone else with direct knowledge.

It is perhaps, in partisan terms, the most politically important part of the story. And it is fiction, presented as if fact. In other words, A LIE.

In essence, given that it presents critical events as fact, which, are, in fact, fiction, THE ABC STORY IS A LIE.
24 Mark Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Ivan, for crying out loud - the document was a fake. Give it up, please…
25 Owen Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 6:30 am
How accurate are cruise missiles?? It just seems odd to me that “if” there were CIA agents on the ground surrounding Bin Laden, they would choose to use a cruise missile. Surely you would just knock out the house with a RPG or even using handguns? Using a cruise missile when you have agents there on the ground sounds a bit unrealistic. I’m not a military man but that just sounds like common sense to me.
26 ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama at politburo diktat 2.0 Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 8:49 am
[…] Mark Coffey weighs in About That 9/11 Docudrama Think Progress and Richard Clarke apparently had a good point with their objection to the scene where Sandy Berger is shown dithering while the CIA has bin Laden in its sights. … this report in CQ confirms to my satisfaction that the scene is in the movie, and it’s as described, and it is in fact fictional … […]
27 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Now Where Have I Heard This Before? Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 8:56 am
[…] Dean Barnett, sounding an awful lot like somone I know: THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT “The Path to 9/11” centers on one scene where CIA operatives and Northern Alliance irregulars under the leadership of the awe-inspiring Ahmed Shah Massoud have the opportunity to kill bin Laden. They phone NSA chief Sandy Berger for authorization to make the hit. Berger refuses to make the decision and in the scene actually hangs up on the operatives. […]
28 Mark Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Owen, cruise missiles are very accurate indeed, and they would have the benefit of not charging into a heavily armed group of radical Islamists eager to die with CIA operatives not so eager to do so. I can totally understand calling in a cruise missile or two…
29 Matt Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
The CIA officer who was heading up the Bin Laden capture plan says that it is accurate. He isn’t sure whether it was Richard Clarke, who opposed the plan or Sandy Berger who called it off, but he is clear that it was the NSA.

“…Clarke was bad-mouthing it… the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level…the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication… was that the NSC canceled the operation…”

“In spring 1998, I briefed Mr. Clarke and senior CIA, Department of Defense and FBI officers on a plan to kidnap bin Laden. Mr. Clarke’s reaction was that “it was just a thinly disguised attempt to assassinate bin Laden.” I replied that if he wanted bin Laden dead, we could do the job quickly. Mr. Clarke’s response was that the president did not want bin Laden assassinated, and that we had no authority to do so.”

The only question is whether it was Clarke, Berger, or Clinton who cancelled the plan, not whether it existed.
30 Mark Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Matt, I have no doubt that what you just described occurred; however, that’s not what the scene portrays, by all accounts…
31 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Report: ABC agrees to edit “Path to 9/11″ after phone call from Clinton Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
[…] Tom Kean, who was one of the heads of the 9/11 Commission and a consultant on the film, has admitted that the scene was fictionalized as a composite of the many, many counterterrorism failures that happened on Billy Jeff’s watch. Mac Ranger leafs through his copy of the 9/11 Commission Report and plucks these two killer paragraphs: The Clinton administration had as many as four chances to kill or capture bin Laden between December 1998 and July 1999, but all the operations were scuttled because of uncertain intelligence and fears that civilians or dignitaries might be killed. In one example, in May 1999, sources provided detailed reports about bin Laden’s whereabouts in the Kandahar area over a period of five nights, but strikes were not ordered because the military was concerned about the accuracy of the reports and the risk of collateral damage, investigators found. […]
32 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″ Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
[…] You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. […]
33 Leaning Straight Up Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 2:07 am
9/11- A time for all things: A time to remember, to weep, to blame, to threaten…

The 5 year anniversary is just around the corner, and it brings with it a flurry of conflicting emotions.
What should be a solemn day of rememberance, a time for unity and resolve and a time to reflect has become a time to bloviate, to threaten, to bla…
34 ‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0 Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 8:39 am
[…] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
35 ‘The Path to 9/11’ Docudrama Second Thoughts at politburo diktat 2.0 Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 8:48 am
[…] I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for ‘The Path to 9/11.’ I’ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
36 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » ‘Path To 9/11′ Roundup Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 9:14 am
[…] The Commissar treacherously breaks ranks: I had been in agreement with Mark Coffey that the subject matter merited a closer rendering of the facts. If the most objectionable scenes are edited or removed, that works for me. One thing is for sure, ABC could not have purchased such good promotion for ‘The Path to 9/11.’ I’ll be watching, Sunday and Monday 8PM Eastern, in HD, I presume. […]
37 politicalpartypoop.com - Politics and other stuff in life that stinks » Thugs for life: Dems threaten ABC’s broadcast license over “Path to 9/11″ Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
[…] You can’t play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and “composite” scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin’ nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid — who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to — wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC. […]