A Curious Omission
Perhaps the one redeeming feature of The Path to 9/11 is the way the makers of the miniseries have gone out of their way to highlight, even if just for a moment, some of the real unsung heroes in our fight against terrorism. From the choice of John O'Neill as the primary protagonist to the ubiquitous captions identifying people who made important contributions to the effort, the miniseries does a decent job of giving credit where credit is due.
For instance, the filmmakers identify (via an onscreen caption) the Port Angeles, Washington customs agent whose vigilance may well have prevented al Qaeda's millennium plot. Similar recognition is given whenever an important bit player makes a contribution, whether it be a reporter, an embassy agent, or an informant.
That's why I was somewhat surprised that one obvious cameo was omitted: Patrick Fitzgerald. Here's a blurb from a U.S. News article on Fitzgerald:
It's doubtful that any one man did more during the 1990s to bring al Qaeda to justice than Fitzgerald. He was a featured witness before the 9/11 Commission, and his testimony is included in the report. Yet for some reason, Fitzgerald was not given any recognition in the film.
And it's not like there weren't any opportunities. There were a number of scenes devoted to the trial and sentencing of Yousef, Rahman, and others. In those scenes, the federal judge is identified, as are some of the other minor players, including the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, Mary Jo White. But there's no mention of Fitzgerald at all (unless I missed it).
Now it's always dangerous to infer anything from an omission. It was probably just an innocent oversight by the writers. But given the current effort by partisan Republicans to attack Fitzgerald for his conduct in the Plame investigation, I can't help but wonder whether the failure to give Fitzgerald any credit was a deliberate decision. I certainly hope not. That would be incredibly petty, even by the standards of this miniseries.
For instance, the filmmakers identify (via an onscreen caption) the Port Angeles, Washington customs agent whose vigilance may well have prevented al Qaeda's millennium plot. Similar recognition is given whenever an important bit player makes a contribution, whether it be a reporter, an embassy agent, or an informant.
That's why I was somewhat surprised that one obvious cameo was omitted: Patrick Fitzgerald. Here's a blurb from a U.S. News article on Fitzgerald:
Long before Osama bin Laden became a household name, a young federal prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald in the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York became steeped in the emerging world of jihad, toiling with little public recognition to prosecute some of the world's most dangerous terrorists, all with ties to the evolving Islamic fundamentalist movement. Men like Ramzi Yousef, who engineered the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993; Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Egyptian cleric who plotted to destroy New York tunnels, bridges, and other landmarks; the four leaders of the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and, that same year, bin Laden himself. "He is a one-man encyclopedia on al Qaeda because he has this absolutely scary photographic memory," says Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who is Fitzgerald's best friend. "He is a one-man dot connector, which is very valuable."
It's doubtful that any one man did more during the 1990s to bring al Qaeda to justice than Fitzgerald. He was a featured witness before the 9/11 Commission, and his testimony is included in the report. Yet for some reason, Fitzgerald was not given any recognition in the film.
And it's not like there weren't any opportunities. There were a number of scenes devoted to the trial and sentencing of Yousef, Rahman, and others. In those scenes, the federal judge is identified, as are some of the other minor players, including the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, Mary Jo White. But there's no mention of Fitzgerald at all (unless I missed it).
Now it's always dangerous to infer anything from an omission. It was probably just an innocent oversight by the writers. But given the current effort by partisan Republicans to attack Fitzgerald for his conduct in the Plame investigation, I can't help but wonder whether the failure to give Fitzgerald any credit was a deliberate decision. I certainly hope not. That would be incredibly petty, even by the standards of this miniseries.
posted by A.L. at 2:27 PM
14 Comments:
They cannot highlight that fitz was part of the 911 coverup - after all - he appears to be leading a major cover-up and distraction in plamegate now.
All of the celebrations about "fitzmas" were premature and did not consider that he was part of the 911 cover up.
Yet, interesting enough - some bloggin' careers were made by 24/7 speculation (vitually all wrong) about fitzmas being just around the corner.
The lies are not just in the MSM and just like in the MSM, "experts" are created by constantly being paraded in front of the crowd instead of any actual expertise or competent. In the case of "fitzmas", it was an endless circle of links that promoted some to "superblog" status.
Anonymous at 5:45PM, I'm sure you think you said something in your comment, but other than the first sentence, which simply repeats something AL had already pointed out, nothing else in your comment makes any kind of sense.
Let me make it perfectly clear: I did not watch "path to 911", as I stopped watching ABC some time ago, it having nothing I want to see, and the information I had seen about this show did not inspire me to change my mind.
I appreciate AL's sacrifice in watching and reporting on it, and I, like him, find it interesting and a bit amusing that they left out any mention of Fitzgerald. At a guess, the writer or writers did not think of him because it did not fit in their agenda, and it was their agenda that was paramount, not the truth.
Did they also not mention Kathleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to investigate the "20th hijacker"?
Back to my fellow Anonymous: it seems to me that you have a problem with people who have built what might be considered successful blogs, as your comments seem unrelated to the issue at hand, which is "path to 911". If you watched the thing, and you have some insight to add, please share it with us.
I've been thinking about this post quite a bit as we all know omissions can be just as telling as the inclusions. Good point Anon above that Kathleen Rowley was also excluded. People who read AL come at this query with certainly more facts, available analysis and general understanding of the underlying story. But ABC never planned to tell the story to us, to convince us. We aren't the blind faith base so I would wonder whether this was another, "get the message out to the followers" and worry about the flack later. It always reminds me of the Phillip Morris attitude of let 'em smoke, we'll deal with the dying ones like they're insurance payouts. The blind faithers aren't looking for factual interpretation, they're hungry for message and ABC delivered.
Anonymous, you are a fool that really has nothing to say either. WHAT PART OF FITZGERALD WAS PART OF THE 911 COVER UP DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!
We will see - but it appears that the plamegate investigation has "stalled" at best. Fitz wasn't the hero there (at least to date) and he wasn't a hero in getting to the truth about 911. He was directly part of the 911 coverup and, so far, has just provided many distractions about plamegate - distractions that were carefully managed to keep them out of the 2004 election cycle.
What part of that don't you understand?
Perhaps if you cannot wrap your mind around those statements, you should just go back to the moron blogs that you seem to be refering to - the crowd that gives you 24/7 hype and snark without any meaningful to say.
One didn't have to watch the disney propaganda to observe that featuring fitzpatrick would not have added to the propaganda because has been an important part of the cover-up and the circus of his latest grand jury.
But we will see who is right in time, won't we - it is obvious from your tone what crowd you fly with and you and your ilk does not have a very good track record on the correctness of your assertions.
Guess I should be grateful you attack me - must mean that I am on to something.
Latest poll - 45 percent blame bush, 41 percent blame clinton. SAY WHAT YOU WANT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROPAGANDA WAS VERY EFFECTIVE, DOESN'T IT!
And this is before it gets released on dvd, ipod, and gets repeated in schools and even college courses. If this mockumentary had this type of impact as of today, just imagine what it will do over time - all they need to do is plant the doubt.
Fitz wasn't a hero with the 911 investigation (and we will see what happens with the grand jury, though it certainly will not be the "fitzmas" that some irresponsibly promoted) - SO WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE HIM IN PATH TO 911?
And the irresponsible promotion of "fitzmas"? That was really just self-promotion by a gang that actually doesn't seem to get anything right, but the noise attracts a lot of attention.
Kathleen Rowley was also excluded.
Actually, she was featured in the second half of the movie.
Anonymous, I'm not quite sure what you're even alleging. I assure you Fitzgerald has never been a part of any coverup of anything. He's got a reputation as the straightest of straight-shooters. He's just a prosecutor. He investigates and he prosecutes. I know many of these SDNY prosecutors, and I can tell you that they are thoroughly impressive people and they are the last people in the world that would be complicit in the coverup of anything.
I also thought that Fitzgerald being omitted from the film an extraordinary omission.[or his first entanglement with Judy Miller :)]
While I somewhat agree that some people were a little over the top over Fitzmas, etc., it does not take away from the fact that Fitzgerald is a straight arrow. If he were as partisan as Ken Starr or his successor whose name I have forgotten, he would have made some statement to the effect that Karl Rove was guilty but he couldn't prove it.
It is indisputable that Rove (and Cheney) were complicit in leaking the name; note Cheney's annotation on the New York Times article or Rove's admission to Chris Mathews, for examples. To prove all of this, however, in a court of law, would have been incredibly difficult, especially in the realm of intent.
Fitzgerald did the responsible thing here and did not proceed. To my knowledege, the investigation has not been closed, however. If, and it is a big if, the Dems win Congress and we have some unbiased, unfettered, investigation into the goings-on of the Bush Administration, the only reason nothing will happen on this is the statute of limitations, which some of our lawyer friends could shed some light on.
It is also unclear, at this point, what Joe Wilson's civil suit will uncover.
Finally, on a side note, I thought the portrayal of the Yemen Ambassador, Barbara Bodine (?) was absolutely ridiculous. I pulled Clarke's book and found that he did make mention that she didn't cooperate, but this was the most egregious example of showing the candy-ass liberal stereotype which was there to serve a propaganda agenda.
After witnessing that scene, I had had enough of this piece of crap and turned it off. I did not note any sponsors in the second half up to that point. Did they not have any ads in the second part at all? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere.
He's alleging crazy stuff, and doing it with a rather emphatic, one might say fanatical, deployment of capital letters.
Thanks for watching the film. It was interesting to ask my students about it today. Only a couple of them watched it, but the responses were telling. My best student, in fact, said that it was interesting to see the "long view" of the story. Apparently, he is under the impression that, "because of the way the media presents it," whatever this means, most people, himself included, were simply not aware of things that led up to the attacks, prior to 2000. Presumably, the Cole bombing is where most pick up the thread. What is disturbing about this is that it shows that many people will be receiving this "earlier part" of the story for the first time -- and will thus always have their understanding of it tainted by the agenda of these so-called filmmakers.
This is a sad situation. Last night, instead of subjecting myself to it, I watched the Frontline program about John O'Neill, the FBI agent who worked his ass off trying to crack the case, and who eventually was killed in the WTC attack. His story is a tragic example of everything that can go wrong with a bureaucratic machine addicted to its own machinations, and with a bunch of egos fighting for the spotlight. But this is beside the point: what the Frontline program showed was, indeed, everything that happened, from 1993 to 2001, without the bullshit. The news is available, but it doesn't mean people actually get it.
Sincerely,
JL Barnard
How did they portray Bodine? It was clear in the Frontline program that she was obstructing O'Neill's investigation.
She was, more interestingly, the last contact with Iraq, prior to the invasion of Kuwait. She was the one suspected of delivering the "mixed messages" to the Hussein regime about an American response.
At any rate, she was a career foreign service worker, not some "Clinton appointee," for whatever that's worth.
http://www.udel.edu/global/agenda/2002/bodinebio.html
- JLB
I don't know anything about Barbara Bodine, so I can't comment on the accuracy of that part of the film. But she was portrayed as the stereotypical angry, irrational liberal. Her character barked at the female FBI agents for not dressing conservatively enough (their shirts were tucked in) and accused O'Neill, without any provocation at all, of being the stereotypical "Ugly American."
For those who are interested, here is the Frontline program, viewable in Real Player or Windows Media: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
It's at least something like the "real version."
There was also an article a few months back in the New Yorker, which I can't locate in their online archive, which detailed the career of O'Neill's Lebanese-American protege, who was the closest of all to "connecting the dots" pre-9/11, and who was stymied by the CIA, who refused to share certain information with him, and with O'Neill.
Both of these stories are heartbreaking, and well worth watching and reading and sharing around, now that this monstrous lie of a film is out there contaminating the public discourse.
- JLB
If fitz is such a straight-shooter, then why this:
No Final Report Seen in Inquiry on C.I.A. Leak
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?ei=5088&en=9be032e1d4f42e2b&ex=1287374400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1129734144-oqXKybJ4vO022lghYIzkkQ
At the time, this was spun to represent it as FITZMAS IS COMING, FITZMAS IS COMING!!!!
In reality, that was just self-promotion by a small group of bloggers - they kept it up for several months.
Anyone that wants to "honor" the 911 commission as the last word in truth about 911 doesn't know what they are talking about. Gratefully, most of the American public does not see it this way.
Its ironic to hear people counter the lies in the disney propaganda by saying, "BUT THE 911 COMMISSION FOUND blah blah blah blah...."
The commission itself did not do a thorough job (but gratefully it was not quite the propaganda piece that chimpy and gang wanted). It certainly is not a compelling or comprehensive analysis.
To the degree that fitz was part of it, not sure why anyone wants to say his role in the 911 investigations actually proves anything.
Even more so, don't see why anyone wants to say that not including him in the abc propaganda package represents anything more than staying away from a figure that the administration would prefer not to highlight.
To represent it as anything else is just more fitzmas hype - we will see where that leads, but to date, it has been a HUGE ZERO.
No one can deny, that our "knight in shining armour" did do everything he could to ensure that his so-called "investigation" did not provide any information during chimpy's last "accountability moment."
Isn't that in itself a cover up?
Anonymous,
I'm not sure I follow, but to the extent you're suggesting that Fitzgerald should have released more information publicly, I don't think that's a fair criticism. Fitzgerald is bound by grand jury secrecy laws. He can't just issue a report or disclose information he learned via the grand jury process. He was wasn't part of the 9/11 Commission. He was just a witness.
Not saying he should have released more publically - not the point I am making at all - saying that the process could have been carried out in a timely manner and that I believe it intentionally was conducted so as to keep it out of the 2004 race.
It is curious that when it is done, regardless of the outcome, there will be no report - he had the option of releasing one.
Most "liberals" are concerned about how NYT did not do its job, reporting, because it did not want to impact the 2004 election. Best evidence suggests that the plamegate investigation was conducted to keep it out of that news cycle too.
His appearance before the 911 commission was not based on any insight he had into the crimes or the perpetrators - we can disagree, but he brought no clarification or information to the table. He was a "friendly" witness, not someone that would have been able to drop a "bombshell."
Some would (and do) say that he was just there to be part of a dog-and-pony show. To say that he would have brought some credibility or added information by being part of disney propaganda is not true.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home