The Path to 9/11

EmeraldLexuSC3 · 09-01-06, 01:58 PM

"The Path to 9/11,” an ABC documentary recounts the bureaucratic bungling and lack of action against al Qaeda that was pervasive prior to the September 11 atrocities.
The mini-series is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and John Miller’s book, "The Cell."
The first three hours will air on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11. A show worth watching.

Lil4X · 09-02-06, 11:33 AM

I hope they will draw an audience, the reviews from those who have seen advance screenings have been quite good. The difficulty will be to develop characters that will carry the full five hours - especially while everyone knows the ending. Striking a balance between documentary and docudrama is difficult. Holding the attention of an audience conditioned to car crashes, gunfights, and explosions between every commercial break is going to be tough. I'm really concerned about that.

Back in the '60's I bought an (abridged) copy of the Warren Commission Report. In paperback it was about six bucks - a thick book that dwarfed James Michener’s novels, and a big investment for a student with two jobs. I slogged my way through the minutia of the text, the excruciating detail and the legalease that pads typical federal documents with "importance" - all to come to the conclusion everyone had in those days . . . Oswald acted alone. Duh!

I discovered a cure for insomnia - reading self-important bureaucratic justifications for a conclusion long since reached by the public. Turning it into a 46-minute TV show (plus commercials) or 90-minute movie would be a snoozer - but a FIVE HOUR miniseries? Guess I'll clear out a space on the DDR and fast-forward through the slow parts.

I hope it's interesting and as well done as some claim, but I fear it could easily be like "Watching Paint Dry . . . the series".

mmarshall · 09-02-06, 07:34 PM

I generally don't have a very high opinion of the conclusions that so-called " commissions " often come up with. They have to deal with data and testimony that is often tainted. Witnesses and so-called " experts " , for example come to the hearings. Some tell the truth, some slant information to say what they think the commissioners want to hear, some are afraid to say much for fear of their jobs, some refuse to answer on 5th Amendment grounds, some mix truth and lies, and some just flat-out lie. How can you form an accurate conclusion from that?

Two witnesses hold their hands up on oath and then tell two different versions of the same event.

And, as an aside note......I have seen more than one so-called " expert " that couldn't find his or her way down the hall to the restroom without help.

Lil4X brought up the example of the Warren Comission. There was an even different example..........a commission that was afraid to release the truth (even today ) because they felt that the American people, politically, couldn't handle the truth. So they continue to try and convince people that Oswald acted alone when it is almost certain that Fidel Castro was behind him.....Castro had a LOT of bones to pick with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion.

EmeraldLexuSC3 · 09-08-06, 11:58 AM

Controversy has been brewing for a while over the airing of ABC's mini-series and now Senate Democrats are threatening legislative and regulatory action to be taken against ABC if it chooses to air the program.

Democrats have treated the 9/11 Commission Report as a sacred document. Information from the report was used over and over again to beat up on President Bush. Opponents of the President quoted commission findings frequently and they scored some political points.

Oddly enough the mini-series is based on the commission report, and even blessed by commission chairman Thomas Kean. The Clinton administration officials and liberal bloggers are outraged by the portrayal of the Democratic administration, which is based on information from the same report they loved so much to selectively quote.

Apparently the Democratic party is intellectually bankrupt when it comes to fighting terror. Strangled by their peace-at-any-price caucus and their overarching concern for political correctness, they haven’t come up with a single idea in a decade of how to fight this war.

bluestar · 09-08-06, 12:18 PM

Clearly the advance showings of this politically-motivated docu-drama has revealed many false claims and outright lies. Why is it that the ultimate goal is to put the blame of the lack of capture of OBL on the Clinton govt ? Is that smart ?

Whatever happened to all the pointers we had in the first 9 months of the Bush presidency ? The Aug 6th PDB, the FBI watch of the San Diego terror cell, the FBI notice of students in flying schools w/out a need to land the flight, the "hair on fire" CIA Director, etc.. etc... Did any of that make it to the movie ?

One blatant lie in this movie, is that which claimed that the National Security Adviser to Clinton, Sandy Berger, put the phone down and refused to authorize the capture or killing of OBL when the US forces had him cornered. Of course, nothing even remote to that ever happened.

Even Harvey Keitel, one of the actors in the docudrama, has come out to express his concern about many of the false claims in the show, and has called for edits to correct the anomalies... Here is an excerpt from an interview he recently granted on this:

-----
Keitel: Yea, I had questions about events–material I was given in the Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. Yes, I had some conflicts there.

Q: How was that met?

Keitel: With discussion..ummm with argument. When I received the script it said ABC history project –I took it to be exactly what they presented to me. History–and that facts were correct. It turned out not all the facts were correct and ABC set about trying to heal that problem..In some instances it was too late because we had begun.

Q: Do you feel that anything should be changed in this film?

Keitel: Yes I do. This is a tough issue.–(sure)

You can compile certain things as long as the truth remains the truth. You can’t put things together, compress them and then distort the reality.

Q:…in the case of September 11th though, do you feel that it is an absolute responsibility that it be factually accurate even if it is a dramatization?

Keitel: Absolutely, you cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event. No. Where we have distorted something we have made a mistake-and that should be corrected. It can be corrected. It can be corrected by the people getting involved in the story that they are going to see.
-----

If ABC is not doing this politically, they owe it to us to ensure their depiction or history of events are accurate and fair. That is what a credible network organization would do....

As to using the 9/11 Commission Report as well as Chairman Kean as a Consultant.. Puleaze... Kean is a Republican, and even he is retracting his initial support for this show. ABC and its affiliates are feeling the heat also. Just as the Republicans expressed outrage at CBS's portrayal of Reagan back in 2003, so are the Dems doing same with ABC's politically-motivated and inaccurate portrayal of history.

The best solution is to pull this mini-series... It has ZERO credibility !

Lil4X · 09-08-06, 01:09 PM

Did you attend a pre-screening of the series?

EmeraldLexuSC3 · 09-08-06, 02:02 PM

Face it - 9/11 came at the end of a long string of inadequate responses by both parties and the media. The idea that somehow Bush bears the principal responsibility after 8 MONTHS in office. while Clinton is blameless for 8 YEARS of inaction (including the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and the planning and prep for 9/11) is ludicrous.

Besides, if I were Sandy Berger, I’d probably keep a low profile during this entire controversy, figuring the less snooping done into my record on terrorism, the better.

bluestar · 09-08-06, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmeraldLexuSC3

Face it - 9/11 came at the end of a long string of inadequate responses by both parties and the media. The idea that somehow Bush bears the principal responsibility after 8 MONTHS in office. while Clinton is blameless for 8 YEARS of inaction (including the first WTC attack, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole attack and the planning and prep for 9/11) is ludicrous.

Besides, if I were Sandy Berger, I’d probably keep a low profile during this entire controversy, figuring the less snooping done into my record on terrorism, the better.

This kind of sentiment is erroneous. Clinton did lots to combat terrorism while in office. He stopped the Millenium Plot, the Bojenka Plot, the plot to bomb the tower in Seatte, and who knows how many numerous others... Many of which we may never know due to their classified nature. Its a classic right-wing propaganda to blame everything on Clinton.... Does any of you think he did nothing to protect us in his 8 years in office ? Afterall, for 7 years (1993-2000) we had ZERO terrorist attack on US soil when Clinton was in office...

OTOH, Cheney was placed in charge of terrorism after the inauguration in 2001. For months he did nothing.... According to Paul O'Neill - former Treasury Secretary - by Feb 2001, Bush was asking for any way they could find to attack Iraq, rather than focusing on Al Qaeda. By April of that same year, Rumsfeld was holding a meeting on Iraq displaying a map of the oil fields in Iraq and which country will control what part of these oil fields after an invasion. How many meetings were held on Iraq on how to divvy up the spoils of that country prior to invasion ? It was a feeding frenzy to attack and take over Iraq, due in large part to GREED... Now they have the country all broken up, and in ruins...

Even after the towers fell in NYC, according to Richard Clarke, Bush was more interested in whatever evidence exists to link SH to the 9/11 terrorist act... In other words, this govt was focused on Iraq not Al Qaeda, even when evidence of Al Qaeda stared them in the face - recall the Aug 6th PDB titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside the US", and many FBI reports from the field on Moussaoiu and Attah and others in 2001.

By pure coincidence, the long-awaited Intel Report on pre-war with Iraq and 9/11 came out today. I suggest you guys take some time to read it and digest it very well....

You will find the report here: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Bottomline is this: this docu-drama is filled with lies and ABC is addressing it due to the pressure they are getting. Even when edited, it smarks of partisan politicking on the part of Disney-owned ABC. Their credibility is toast unless they do the right thing - pull it off the air. There is a good chance they will pull it...

bitkahuna · 09-08-06, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestar

Bottomline is this: this docu-drama is filled with lies and ABC is addressing it due to the pressure they are getting. Even when edited, it smarks of partisan politicking on the part of Disney-owned ABC. Their credibility is toast unless they do the right thing - pull it off the air. There is a good chance they will pull it...

So you believe Disney or ABC has a 'right wing' agenda?

Why do you think that and if so why do you think they do?

bluestar · 09-08-06, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

So you believe Disney or ABC has a 'right wing' agenda?

Bcos the producer is affiliated with Rush Limbaugh and is a well-known GOP operative, the series Consultant was another GOP operative, and the storyline was stacked against the Democrat, Bill Clinton... 8 weeks to the mid-term elections, on a very emotional and politically-charged issue - 9/11 rememberance.... Essentially, a collusion b/w corporation + govt = ????

Of course, if you or anyone else have a contrarian opinion on this, why not express them ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

Why do you think that and if so why do you think they do?

The way they have changed their story on this docu-drama in the last few days raises lots of suspicions. First it was a documentary, then it was a docu-drama, then it became a dramatization.... Huh !!! Which is it ? And why the changing/moving rationales ?

Besides, fundamentally, ABC/Disney is a corporation, and corporations need to be in good terms with the govt so as to get favors. They need licenses renewed, perks and tax breaks, contracts, favorable govt policies, etc.... Besides, with a one-party governance in the country today, why not kow-tow to the party in power and show loyalty to the cause ?

Now answer this question: Why is this historical, documentary, docu-drama, dramatization ... or whatever they choose to call it.... filled with so many inaccuracies, and pointing finger solely at the Clinton govt at the 9/11 episode ? To tell a story or recount history, you must get it right or not do it at all.... That simple.

bluestar · 09-12-06, 01:14 AM

And any comments ? Or is everyone 9/11-ed out ?

Lil4X · 09-12-06, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestar

Besides, fundamentally, ABC/Disney is a corporation, and corporations need to be in good terms with the govt so as to get favors. They need licenses renewed, perks and tax breaks, contracts, favorable govt policies, etc....

So the left would eliminate corporations - and replace them with what, collective farms? The Roosevelt administration wrote the underlying legal structure of the broadcast industry today - so you need to look at the dems for the legislative chaos that put the government in charge of broadcast content. Of course the licenses you cite are the very broadcast licenses that were being threatened a few days ago by Clinton's lawyers. But that's not extortion . . . . nooooo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestar

Besides, with a one-party governance in the country today, why not kow-tow to the party in power and show loyalty to the cause ?

So sorry you lost the elections, would you like us to say we're sorry and turn over the government to you? Funny how the radical left cries every time they don't get their way. . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestar

Now answer this question: Why is this historical, documentary, docu-drama, dramatization ... or whatever they choose to call it.... filled with so many inaccuracies, and pointing finger solely at the Clinton govt at the 9/11 episode ? To tell a story or recount history, you must get it right or not do it at all.... That simple.

Of course all of this was written off the blueprint of the 9/11 report that the leftists were gloating over when it was published - and still beating the administration with only a week ago. Somehow that document that condemned President Bush up until last week, is now unfair to that moral midget, Willie Jeff. I still think "Wag the Dog" was a better documentary of the Clinton administration's smoke and mirrors defense of Monicagate.

mmarshall · 09-12-06, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil4X

So sorry you lost the elections, would you like us to say we're sorry and turn over the government to you? Funny how the radical left cries every time they don't get their way. . . .

Not only that, Lil, but while we're on the subject of movies, I sure didn't hear any crying

from the left when Michael Moore let go with Farenheit 911.

1SICKLEX · 09-12-06, 04:13 PM

Its on the news I think they got a 7.4 viewers and like 11. something at night. People watched it...

SC400DAVE · 09-12-06, 04:37 PM

[quote=bluestar;2118566]This kind of sentiment is erroneous. Clinton did lots to combat terrorism while in office. He stopped the Millenium Plot, the Bojenka Plot, the plot to bomb the tower in Seatte, and who knows how many numerous others...[quote]

To his credit you forgot one:
In November 1998, at the urging of President Bill Clinton, the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," which "declared that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." This bill was signed into law by President Clinton.

It cracks me up that this well known fact is always ignored by the leftys. Who started what? Bush is just trying to finish what Slick Willy started.