Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Liberal Media at work.

With Hillary announcing her bid for the Presidency, the Right has immediately gone into "smear all Clintons" mode. Remember "The Path to 9/11," the ABC "docu-drama" produced by Evangelical Activists, designed to blame Clinton for 9/11, that was so full of distortions and lies that even conservatives were criticizing it? Well, for some reason, Sean Hannity has decided to wave this sloppy attempt at fingerpointing in our faces again. And what better way to do this then by having the filmmaker on his show, unchallenged, to defend as truth the very misleading scene he already admitted to fabricating. (Bolds mine)

As advertised, the January 28 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America featured the unedited version of a scene from part one of ABC's deeply flawed "docudrama," The Path to 9/11, in which Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger is shown abandoning an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Discussing the scene, host Sean Hannity, Path to 9/11 screenwriter and producer Cyrus Nowrasteh, and CBS terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer all asserted that the unedited version was a more accurate representation of history, even though both versions of the scene depict an event that did not happen and Nowrasteh himself has acknowledged that the scene was fabricated.

As Media Matters for America noted, Fox News advertised that the January 28 Hannity's America would feature "the video Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see," adding that Clinton "forced ABC to cut out an entire scene" and that Fox News would "expose the clip at the center of the controversy." While Fox News did not specify which scene it would broadcast, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Berger scene was among the "outtakes" from the film that Fox News obtained "by taping a public talk" that Nowrasteh "gave to a World Affairs Council chapter."

Hannity aired both the edited and unedited versions of the scene, which depicted Berger refusing to authorize a raid on an isolated compound in Afghanistan, known as Tarnak Farms, to capture or kill bin Laden, even though CIA officers and Afghan fighters were in position just outside. The most dramatic difference between the two versions was a shot of Berger hanging up on then-CIA director George Tenet as he asks for authorization -- that shot was edited out at the last minute by ABC. Even with the edit, the scene still falsely portrayed Berger abandoning the opportunity to act against bin Laden. According to the 9-11 Commission report, Tenet stated that "he alone had decided" to abort the mission on May 29, 1998 -- weeks before the target date of June 23. The report further noted that both intelligence and military officials had serious doubts about the likelihood of its success. It also noted that the operation had been planned out and rehearsed, but gave no indication that CIA or Afghan personnel were in position and ready to conduct the operation when it was canceled.

So, why drag this up now? Gee, do you think it could have anything to do with trying to tie together "Clinton" and "9/11?" Could it be to help paint Clinton as a desperate bully, "forcing" ABC to make edits on scenes he doesn't want you to see? (Shriek! Scream!) Could it be that Hannity is so desperate for a smear, that he'll dredge up this crap after it didn't work the first time for another attempt to blame 9/11 on a Democrat... any Democrat? Especially a Clinton?

You know, I think it just might. Remember, America: Everything is the fault of a Clinton.

HANNITY: And for a more in-depth look at these cut clips and the truth behind the story, we're joined by the writer and producer of ABC's Path to 9/11, Cyrus Nowrasteh. And former CIA senior intelligence analyst and current CBS News terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer is with us. All right, Cyrus, let me begin with you. First of all, you know, you based this -- you felt what you had in there originally was true. Tell us about the political pressure to edit it.

NOWRASTEH: Well, you know, I wasn't privy to a lot of that pressure. I mean, it was sort of a national hysteria at the time, and I think there was just an attempt to sort of suppress history.

An attempt to "suppress history." So, in other words, pointing out intentional misrepresentation of fact is "suppressing" history.

There's more "you poor, censored boy!" bootlicking in the story, if you can stomach it.

It's bad enough that we have Americans that remain willfully ignorant of history and matters of political importance in this country. The fact that Hannity and his ilk are allowed to spread outright lies and distortions of history on a national level, completely unchallenged, is disgusting and shameful.