My Letter To ABC About the Upcoming "Docu-Drama" Path to 9/11
ABC:
Instead of fabricating scenes as to how 9/11 was somehow Bill Clinton's fault, why don't you include factual scenes that will give your viewers a more accurate representation of who should be the focus of public criticism and scrutiny? I have four reccommendations:
1. How about a scene from Bush's Crawford ranch where he receives a high level intelligence briefing one month before the attacks (Aug. 6th PDB) that outlined how concerned the CIA was that a bin Laden attack was imminent?
2. Why don't you include the actual 9/11 Commission testimony of George Tenet and Richard Clarke where they admit that the bin Laden intelligence was "single-sourced", unreliable and ultimately George Tenet's decision to act on?
3. How about the 9/11 Commission testimony of Thomas Pickard, acting Director of the FBI in the high threat summer of 2001, where he admits that Attorney General Ashcroft did not want to hear of the the al Qaeda threat?
4. Why don't you "dramatize" how the Bush administration organized private flights out of the country for the bin Laden and Saudi royal families? This is certainly noteworthy because the FBI hadn't gotten a chance to question them and all American flights were still grounded. Perhaps if the FBI was able to fully interrogate them, Osama bin Laden, five years later, would have been apprehended.
What's the point of dramatizing (and fabricating) key scenes? The truth is far more entertaining and shocking.
Thank You.
UPDATE: Clinton Lawyer Bruce Lindsey sends a letter to ABC Chief Bob Iger.
Families of September 11 also issue a letter of their own.
Instead of fabricating scenes as to how 9/11 was somehow Bill Clinton's fault, why don't you include factual scenes that will give your viewers a more accurate representation of who should be the focus of public criticism and scrutiny? I have four reccommendations:
1. How about a scene from Bush's Crawford ranch where he receives a high level intelligence briefing one month before the attacks (Aug. 6th PDB) that outlined how concerned the CIA was that a bin Laden attack was imminent?
2. Why don't you include the actual 9/11 Commission testimony of George Tenet and Richard Clarke where they admit that the bin Laden intelligence was "single-sourced", unreliable and ultimately George Tenet's decision to act on?
3. How about the 9/11 Commission testimony of Thomas Pickard, acting Director of the FBI in the high threat summer of 2001, where he admits that Attorney General Ashcroft did not want to hear of the the al Qaeda threat?
4. Why don't you "dramatize" how the Bush administration organized private flights out of the country for the bin Laden and Saudi royal families? This is certainly noteworthy because the FBI hadn't gotten a chance to question them and all American flights were still grounded. Perhaps if the FBI was able to fully interrogate them, Osama bin Laden, five years later, would have been apprehended.
What's the point of dramatizing (and fabricating) key scenes? The truth is far more entertaining and shocking.
Thank You.
UPDATE: Clinton Lawyer Bruce Lindsey sends a letter to ABC Chief Bob Iger.
Families of September 11 also issue a letter of their own.
posted by ChurchCommittee at 3:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home