The acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, has, in an unprecedented move, taken time out from his schedule to launch an attack against a movie. Morell released a statement in which he warned viewers that Zero Dark Thirty was not historically accurate.
Funny, there wasn’t this kind of response when Three Days Of The Condor or JFK eviscerated the CIA. So what’s the problem here?
Morell puts forth three reasons for his diatribe. The first and third seem to be standard issue, but pay close attention to the second. Here is the text:
I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty, which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context. The film, which premiered this week, addresses the successful hunt for Usama Bin Ladin that was the focus of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence Community, and military partners for many years. But in doing so, the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.
What I want you to know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of the facts. CIA interacted with the filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final product.
It would not be practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the film departs from reality.
First, the hunt for Usama Bin Ladin was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless commitment of hundreds of officers. The filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency–and the broader Intelligence Community–to just a few individuals. This may make for more compelling entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts. The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was a team effort–and a very large team at that.
Second, the film creates the strong impression that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Ladin. That impression is false. As we have said before, the truth is that multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was hiding in Abbottabad. Some came from detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources as well. And, importantly, whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.
Third, the film takes considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions, including some who died while serving our country. We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our memory of them.
Commentators will have much to say about this film in the weeks ahead. Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a documentary. What you should also remember is that the Bin Ladin operation was a landmark achievement by our country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.
Notice anything? Like the need to distance the government from “enhanced interrogation techniques?” And the temporizing statement “whether enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to obtain information from those detainees …”?
This statement follows on the heels of Senators Diane Feinstein, John McCain, and Carl Levin calling Zero Dark Thirty “grossly inaccurate and misleading” because it implies waterboarding works and was a part of obtaining valuable information in finding Bin Laden. They went so far as to write to Sony Pictures requesting a disclaimer with the film.
The CIA, the Obama Administration, and their allies on the Left have been in denial for years over the success of waterboarding in obtaining information that would save American lives. Bigelow, to her credit, had the guts to hint at the truth.