HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Over the past few days, I've watched with growing interest as the progressive blogosphere has grown increasingly obsessed over ABC's forthcoming supposed-docudrama about 9/11. But until today I've not been particularly interested in posting about the subject, mostly because, to be quite honest, the entire thing just turns my stomach. But with the entry of a former President of the United States and the Families of September 11 into the fray, I've changed my mind and decided to try and put down my thoughts.

First off, why I haven't posted... To me, 9/11 is not something that should have ever been turned into entertainment. Ever. The idea of using United 93 or The World Trade Center as a source of entertainment, something to pass the time on a long summer evening, for example, feels wrong to me on so many levels I really don't even know where to start. Documentaries I can both accept and embrace. But Hollywood entertainment? I honestly don't see how that makes sense to anyone.

I was in Washington, DC on the day of the attack. At the time, I lived on Logan Circle, roughly ten blocks from the White House. From the roof of my office in Georgetown, I could look across the river and see the Pentagon. On the morning of the attacks I was still at home, but several of my friends and co-workers were already at the office. Another friend, one I hadn't seen in months, was reporting for his first day on the job to his new office in the World Trade Center Complex. And it was amny, many months more before I was able to determine that he had in fact survived. I can, and always will, remember that day as if it was yesterday. I lived it. The idea of it becoming some sort of spectacle for others to enjoy seems so wrong, so totally and completely out of bounds, that anything other than a straightforward, factual documentary offends me on a very visceral level.

That moral objection leads directly to a second, much more practical objection to 9/11 movies. From the beginning, my fear has always been that we'd find ourselves on a very slippery slope. From what I've read, it seems the intentions of the makers of both United 93 and World Trade Center were good. My fear, however, was that having set the precedent for the use of 9/11 as a source of entertainment, a door would be opened that would make it much, much easier for filmmakers with more impure motives to make movies that would become accepted. Once the line from documentary to fictional portrayal was crossed, I feared there would be no way to hold the line.

Sadly, what we're witnessing with this ABC drama proves that my fears were justified. What I would not have predicted, however, is that we would have slipped down this slope so quickly.

The makers of this film have gone to great lengths to fabricate scenes that pin the blame for 9/11 solely on Bill Clinton and his administration. They have fabricated whole-cloth scenes that aren't simply inaccurate, they are diametrically opposed to the events as they actually occurred. Clinton passed up a chance to target bin Laden because of concerns over the Lewinsky scandal? The truth is that he in fact did order strikes at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, a move that sent Republicans into tizzy.

Here, for the record, are the facts:

On August 20, 1998, the United States launched Operation Infinite Reach. It was a direct reposne to al Qaeda attacks in Tanzania and Kenya. The attacks targeted facilities in both Afghanistan and Sudan, each in their own way believed to be connected to bin Laden. In the Afghani strike, it was bin Laden himself who was the target. Then, several months later, during the height of congressional impeachment proceedings, Clinton ordered the execution of Operation Desert Fox, a three-day strike against Iraq. Finally, just weeks after the proceedings ended, Clinton order Operation Allied Force, a months-long NATO effort to end the atrocities taking place in Serbia.

In each case, Clinton's motives and methods were attacked by Republicans far and wide, with no less than Trent Lott, the Senate Majority Leader, accusing Clinton of "wagging the dog" to distract the nation from much more important matters. Worse still, many questioned the need for the strikes at all. no less than candidate Bush mocked the idea of firing multi-million dollar cruise missiles at mud huts in an effort to combat terrorism. (Can't find the link, but this will get you close)

So in this specific instance the facts are clear. While the Republican Majority was obsessed with Clinton's sexual behavior, Clinton was at least in part focused on bin Laden's behavior. And yet, while still hiding behind the imprimatur of the 9/11 Commission, the film makers have decided to present the scene as if Clinton passed up the chance to order air-strikes. Where Clinton took a huge political risk to order the strikes, the film portrays him as holding off. In real life, Clinton targeted bin Laden. But in this film, he fails to act.

9/11 happened to all of us. It was a national tragedy. And the facts by themselves are horrific enough that they don't need to be altered. Our government failed us, before, during, and after the day. And if blame is the issue at hand, there is plenty of it to go around. The facts themselves take care of that. We don't need to twist them if we are looking to assign blame.

Let me be clear about this. My objection is not that they have attempted to blame Clinton for the events. My objection is that they are using the 9/11 Commission's work to claim factual accuracy while deliberately misrepresenting the events they detailed. All while turning the events of the day into a spectacle, a source of entertainment and profit.

Maybe I'm crazy, but some things should be off limits. The truth about concentration camps, for example, shouldn't be twisted to entertain the masses. The truth about Pearl Harbor, for example, shouldn't be twisted to reinforce falsehoods. The truth about slavery, for example, shouldn't be distorted to make us feel better about ourselves and our nation. Deluding ourselves may make us feel better, but it does not change the past.

We are each here today because of the actions of our ancestors. But for them, neither us nor the world in which we live would exist. Through their blood, sweat, and tears, we exist. We dishonor them when we do not remember them as they lived. We dishonor their experiences when we twist them for our own benefit. We dishonor their sacrifices when we fail to remember how and why they were made.

Thankfully, after today's events I know I am not alone in my sentiment. Here, for the record, are what the Families of September 11th have had to say:

As we mark five years since 9/11, we are inundated with the media’s portrayal of that tragic day. Television miniseries, Hollywood films, comic books and countless “documentaries” are dramatizing and sometimes distorting the events leading up to and happening on 9/11.

Families of September 11 believes the best way to honor those who were lost is to make sure that what happened to them never happens again. As such, we must understand exactly what took place, and not allow “entertainers” to promote misleading or incorrect information as fact to the public.

If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Any depiction of 9/11 that is not accurate and factual propagates myths, myths that may cause us future harm.

In order to make our country safer and more secure, we owe it to those who were lost to acknowledge that which took place, so that we can ensure it never happens again.

9/11 is bigger than a political party, more important than a partisan agenda. On 9/12 the nation knew that. How is it that in less than 5 years we have forgotten? How is it that in less than 5 years, no less than the Disney Corporation feels it is acceptable to turn the events into a spectacle. Where is the outrage?

We can do better than this. We MUST do better than this.

UPDATE: What of Michael Moore's F911, some have asked...

Moore portrayed his film as a factual account of the events, a documentary, and it was on those explicit terms that the film was debated. Even so, after watching the film myself, I was left deeply divided. For example, on the one hand I thought the airing of Bush's "My Pet Goat" moment was essential to our understanding of the history of the day. That video needed to be seen, and by then it was clear no one else was willing to air it. But at the same time, the way Moore presented it was wrong. It needed context, but it needed no editorializing. It spoke for itself. And throughout the film that pattern was repeated. In some cases, he simply got the facts wrong. In others, he drew false conclusions. But throughout, Moore's motives were never hidden. He never hid behind claims of nonpartisanship, and where facts were an issue they were openly debated. None of that is the case this time around.

UPDATE II: Apparently even uber-conservative media critic Brent Bozell agrees with me on this one. And Jonah Goldberg, in his own way, has also called foul. Good lord... Maybe there's some hope for us after all...