The Path To 9/11 Is Down Sandy’s Pants

By: Bob Parks

As this commentary is being posted mere hours before the scheduled airing of “The Path To 9/11″, there are a few statements that must be made.

The miniseries will air. Given my experience working for Fox’s On-Air Promotion division, the kind of exposure the production has received is something that a television network could only dream of. Not one cent of promotion money has been necessary with talk radio and cable news pundits going off on the subject, as well as all the Clinton lawyers who are officially back on the clock.

Liberals are full of it and remember that every time they lecture all of us about their fraudulent self-celebration of free speech and freedom of expression. Conservatives have tolerated Michael Moore’s “documentaries” and haven’t come anywhere close to the protestations when it comes to the new film that dramatizes liberal wishful-thinking with the assassination of President Bush.

Yes, the right had a victory having Barbra Streisand’s production “The Reagans” banished to premium cable. The difference is that with this “Path to 9/11″ controversy, all the Clinton’s men can whine, complain, and write threatening letters. Ronald Reagan may not have remembered how to even turn on his television set while in the final stages of Alzheimer’s, so he couldn’t rebut any of the questionable scenes that were written as fact.

We’ll never know if “The Path To 9/11″ is fact or fiction because we’ll never know what former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger stuffed down his pants. As the movie’s script is based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and that report is based partly on documents classified and not, until we know what Berger stole and destroyed from the National Archives during his review of documents so he could prep Bill Clinton for his Commission appearance, we’ll never know if the script (and
Commission report) is as accurate as it should be.

Democrats denounce allegations against Berger

Congress to investigate ex-Clinton official’s handling of documents

NBC News and news services

Updated: 8:02 p.m. ET July 21, 2004

WASHINGTON – Democrats assailed Republicans who suggested Wednesday that former White House national security adviser Sandy Berger sought to hide embarrassing materials when he removed classified documents related to the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The Justice Department is investigating whether Berger committed a crime by removing copies of documents about the government’s anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. Berger was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the Sept. 11 commission.

“Last year, when I was in the Archives reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake. It’s one that I deeply regret,” Berger said. “I dealt with this issue in October 2003 fully and completely. Everything that I have done all along in this process has been for the purpose of aiding and supporting the work of the 9/11 commission, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply, absolutely wrong.”

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room but could not find two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report.

“In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the Sept. 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives. When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded,” he said.

NBC’s David Gregory, Pete Williams, and The Associated Press

Before I get to the relevance of this in regards to the miniseries, let’s clear something up right now. Berger didn’t make an “honest mistake” or “inadvertently took a few documents”. He STOLE and DESTROYED classified documents and that is a crime.


Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

So he should have known he was breaking the law, and he lied about his actions by saying in essence that it was an accident. But Sandy Berger’s honesty is a crucial element when it comes to whether the script of the miniseries is as close to accurate or not. He says some of the scenes in question never happened. Can, or should, he be believed?

Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper
By John F. Harris and Allan Lingual
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 1, 2005

Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism.

The deal’s terms make clear that Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them.

He described the episode last summer as “an honest mistake.” Yesterday, a Berger associate who declined to be identified by name but was speaking with Berger’s permission said: “He recognizes what he did was wrong.. It was not inadvertent.”

Berger said on CNN’s The Situation Room, “I have written to Mr. Iger and said that we believe that the scenes that we’re talking about are complete fabrications. They simply did not happen. They should be fixed. But quite honestly, at this point, I don’t think this is something you can fix. I think you just have to yank it.”

Berger wasn’t alone writing to Disney Boss Robert Iger. A bunch of Democrat senators gave a veiled threat in a letter to Iger, and ABC that read in part..

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.


Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

In other words, if you run this program, they may relieve ABC of its broadcast license. No writer/producer in Hollywood should have any political leanings. How many complaints did these senators issue about “The West Wing” and their partisan portrayals? Let’s not forget “non-partisan” examples like “The American President” and almost every movie made in Hollywood where the word “Republican” is used as an off-the-cuff, irrelevant-to-the-plot insult.

So, in the end, it seems to come back to Sandy Berger, who seems to be the one holding the credibility of the Clinton Administration’s seriousness on the terror war in his hands.

According to the Hollywood Reporter’s Andrew Wallenstein,

“In recent days, a rising chorus of critics have assailed “Path to 9/11″ for offering an inaccurate depiction of pre-Sept. 11 behind-the-scenes politics. Former Clinton officials, including Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger have voiced their objections over scenes that cast their involvement in an unflattering light.

“Sources said ABC already has made minor edits to the miniseries, toning down one particular scene involving Berger that was interpreted by some as suggesting he at one point opted to not order the assassination of Osama bin Laden. The scene was edited to emphasize the culpability of no one particular individual, sources said, who also noted that not every scene that has been called into question will necessarily be changed.”

The way I understand it, there’s one sequence where the CIA and the Afghanistan Northern Alliance surround bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to capture him.

They called Washington. They called the White House. Clinton and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of bin Laden because they’re afraid of political fallout should the mission go wrong. Sandy Burger reportedly tells the CIA team in Afghanistan if they want to capture bin Laden, they’re on their own. If they go in, the administration’s not sanctioning or approving the ” The team abandons the mission, and not long after that, that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda bomb the US
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children and also wounded over 4,000.

Unfortunately, we’ll never know what really happened until we find out what documents were “inadvertently” destroyed by Berger. Berger says it never happened. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson disagrees..

“I was there with Clinton and Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur. Berger was very agitated, he couldn’t get a decision from the president.”

According to Art Moore of World Net Daily, “As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football,” which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.”

The scene in “The Path to 9/11,” as Patterson recalled from the preview version, unfolds with CIA operatives at the camp on the phone with Berger, who is expressing concern that an attack could result in innocent bystanders being killed. An agent says he sees swing sets and children’s toys in the area. The scene ends with Berger hanging up the phone.

Patterson says his recollection is that Clinton was involved directly in several similar incidents in which Berger was pressing the president for a decision.

Patterson noted he wasn’t sure what Berger wanted to do – whether the national security adviser wanted the answer to be yes or no – but the frustration, at the very least, was based on the president making himself unavailable to make a decision.

Clinton, according to Patterson, did not return phone calls from Berger for more than an hour then said he wanted more time to study the situation.

Patterson writes: “We ‘studied’ the issues until it was too late-the window of opportunity closed.”

Seeing how Lt. Col. Patterson has never stolen secret documents and destroyed some of them, his honesty is not in question. Sandy Berger’s honesty isn’t either. He has no credibility.

If “The Path To 9/11″ is not an accurate depiction of events that led up to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attack, it’s because some of the documents used to produce the 9/11 Commission were purposefully removed, thus omitted, by Sandy Berger.

We have the word of Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Berger, and “Buzz” Patterson. Patterson said some of the scenes in question happened. If they hadn’t, Clinton’s lawyers would be suing instead of issuing threats.

History isn’t being rewritten. Thanks to the strong spines of those at ABC, it’s finally being exposed.

Bob Parks is a member/writer for the National Advisory Council of Project 21, and VP of Marketing and Media Relations/Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.