“The Path To 9/11″ Part 1 Review
Tell me what your reaction was!
Hot Air has a comparison of edited vs. unedited tape from the film! And this comment
Here’s a quote to get the ball rolling: “Berger, Freeh later thought, was not a national-security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press.”
Betsy Newmark says it’s time to remember Sandy Berger, the Clintonistas, and their Dem enablers:
Think for a moment about the concerted action by Democrats, their lawyers, former White House operatives, Bill Clinton, sympathetic historians, and lefty bloggers to stop this show. Remember that this was the same crowd that was full of praise of for Fahrenheit 9/11 for crystallizing their opposition to George Bush. Accuracy and versimilitude didn’t bother them then. And they weren’t saying a word about 60 Minutes “fake but accurate” story on Bush’s National Guard service. Now, ask yourself. If this crowd were to control the White House, how many more of these attempts to stifle any criticism of them would we be seeing? Think of how much has been aired during Bush’s tenure, even a movie depicting him being assassinated and more denials of civil liberties gets made without Bush’s White House unleashing its lawyers. But, for this thing, the Democrats go to the mattresses. Are they perhaps modeling for us what their response would be to further criticism if they should gain control of the White House – or even of Congress? Don’t forget those not-so-veiled threats to ABC’s license. Ponder that chill wind.
Ed Driscoll has more.
940pm-ish: Another advisory slate.
954pm EST: Well, at least ABC kept the Clinton “I did not have sex with that woman” soundbite in.
957pm: Quip of the hour. “Are there any men left in Washington? Or are they all cowards?”
The Berger scene was cut. Still, as HA commenters are noting, it’s all still fairly damning and damningly fair treatment of the Clinton administration.
1025pm: Customs agent hero Diana Dean is depicted stopping LAX bomb plotter ahmed Ressam at the US-Canadian border. Background here.
September 10, 2006 - 10:46 PM on September 10th, 2006
The “Are there any men left in Washington…” was the best quote of the movie.
I was very happy to see that ABC did not downplay the role of responsibility of Clinton’s administration in this war on terror. Islamic terror declared war on us as early as 1994 – - it took us 8 years before we declared war on terror. It took the right man for the job, it seems.
Don’t be fooled, however, that tomorrow night, ABC won’t be just as harsh revealing the percieved responsiblity held by the Bush administration .
It is also important to keep in mind that this made-for-tv movie is a dramatization. It’s important to keep separate fact from fiction.
What I walked away from with this movie is a strong feeling of the absolute sheer importance that we, as a country.. as a governmnet…do not ever repeat the mistake of underestimating those who hate us. The need to learn from our history, and thiers. 9/11..London..Madrid…it’s not hte end of it.
Their history tells us that they warn us each time they have plans to attack. Bin Laden, post9/11 was also criticized by some of his followers for not following the Koran’s instructions on attacking ones enemy… those instructions include warning the enemy, and offering them the opportunity to convert to Islam to avoid future attacks. This did not happen prior to 9/11.
It does have that familiar “convert or die” ring to it, though, doesn’t it?
Extreme vigilance cannot rest. Period.
September 11, 2006 - 01:04 AM on September 11th, 2006
So Bin Laden violated the Koran? We should issue a Fatwah calling for his execution by other Muslims.
September 11, 2006 - 07:51 AM on September 11th, 2006
Lisa- I would be angry if they weren’t harsh with Bush. Your post is very well spoken and you summed up the point of the movie. We need to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. We can’t try to say the mistakes didn’t happen. Cut the red tape out! Decisions need to be made and some will not always be popular. We ,ost definitely need to evaluate who our friends are.
September 11, 2006 - 10:14 AM on September 11th, 2006
Yeah, I watched most of it (missed the first half hour or so)…and, partisanship aside, it seemed like it was pretty poorly put together (aren’t most made-for-TV movies poorly made?).
I think the writers and producers did a great disservice to the viewers and our collective 9/11 memory, and passed up a good chance to be accurate and follow established official versions of events as documented by the 9/11 Commission and present the “real” story to viewers.
That said, it’s just a movie; they admit that much of it is fictionalized and made up to be dramatic for storytelling effect.
I think everyone (Clinton, and wackos on the right) is taking this just a bit too seriously…it’s a movie. It’s make-believe. Pretend.
September 11, 2006 - 11:30 AM on September 11th, 2006
SF-where did they stray from the 9/11 Commision report?
September 11, 2006 - 12:10 PM on September 11th, 2006
“For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression,” the note that ran before the movie said.
The note said the material is “drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews.”
So you can see, even the producers admit that they “stray” from the official 9/11 Commision report.
September 11, 2006 - 12:18 PM on September 11th, 2006
“Critics, such as historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., said it was “disingenuous and dangerous” not to include accurate historical accounts in the movie.”
That’s all I’m saying, too. What a shame the writers and producers couldn’t stick to the facts…
Oh well, at least the writers and producers acknowledge they made up a lot of stuff in the messages ran before and during the movie.
September 11, 2006 - 01:31 PM on September 11th, 2006
Chris and I talked about this movie late into the night last night, and were still talking about it over coffee this morning. Mostly we were talking about the threat..and trying to understand it. We talked about WTC ‘94, the embassy bombings, the USS Cole and the Clinton Administration’s opportunity to nab Bin Laden in 1998.. and how they didn’t. And how it took this country 8 years after the first WTC bombing (and subsequent attacks) to actually DO something against the terrorist group that hit us first.
Think of life back then. Would the American people, in the mid to late 90’s, have supported a war on terror back then? A government is, ultimately, reflective of its people..or at least the majority. If Clinton would have waged a ‘War on Terror’ in 1998.. how would it have been recieved by the American public? Would it be supported?
Was the Lewinksy incident MORE than just stupid office affair? Did that incident force the Clinton Administration to be OVERLY concerned about public image that they were paranoid to do ANYTHING that would go against public opinon? Paranoid to the point of inaction.
My thoughts at the time of the Lewinsky affair wasn’t just the affair itself.. I mean politicians have been dropping their drawers for decades, right? My problem with the whole affair, and subsequent fall out was what it was doing to OTHER areas that needed attention in the Oval Office.
Ever know anyone who cheats on their spouse? MUCH time and effort is spent not on the affair itself.. but on the cover up. Put that on a presidential level.. and how much time and effort of how many men was spent on the lewinsky cover up..on a daily basis in 1997, 98, 99 ? When that time and effort should have been spent on other areas. THAT was my main issue with the affair. It was IRRESPONSIBLE, at best, for a sitting President to allow such an extreme diversion… to fool around with a 20 something intern and then make the assumption that she’ll keep her fool mouth shut. That speaks more to Clintons character than anything else — the sheer stupidity and arrogance.
Back to the American public, however… think of life back then. How affected were Americans, as a whole, with the embassy bombings. USS Cole. The 94 WTC bombing happened on our soil. Chris was living in NYC at the time and by day two, it wasn’t even in the news anymore. Did it take an attack like 9/11 to force it into the minds of the American people just how serious these terorrists are. They AREN’T just an irritating mosquito to be brushed away. Should America have been taking the warnings of the embassy bombings, USS Cole, et al.. taken them more seriously than they were taken, at the time? Is that a reflection of the apathy of administration of the day?
I ramble. I know – but welcome to my morning coffee chatter
September 11, 2006 - 01:44 PM on September 11th, 2006
Was the Lewinksy incident MORE than just stupid office affair? Did that incident force the Clinton Administration to be OVERLY concerned about public image that they were paranoid to do ANYTHING that would go against public opinon? Paranoid to the point of inaction.
Great point. I have often thought of that myself.
September 11, 2006 - 01:59 PM on September 11th, 2006
Let’s not forget which side it was that made the mountain out of the molehill regarding Lewinsky.
If you argue that the affair and the aftermath distracted the president, then you should acknowledge that the republican led witch-hunt might have contributed to distracting the president from more important issues and therefore put our nation more at risk.
Was the impeachment charade in the best interests of the US here and abroad?
(…I doubt Clinton will hear any apologies from anyone on the Right for making America less safe by pursuing their vindictive impeachment agenda)
September 11, 2006 - 02:08 PM on September 11th, 2006
I think that focusing on the Lewinsky affair as the basis for impeachment was stupid and a mistake and I fault the special prosecutor and those who encouraged him for that.
There were other things that Klinton was investigated for. If they didn’t have enough to go with on those (excluding the Lewinsky affair) they shouldn’t have done it.
It’s possible Klinton was distracted enough and that might be an excuse for his leadership failure against terrorism. It sure never distracted him from other aspects of the job, like his fund-raising and politicking.
September 11, 2006 - 02:11 PM on September 11th, 2006
Lisa- I think that the Clintons came in too preoccupied with ratings. If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that the best decisions are often not the most popular ones.
That being said, I think the country did wonder why we allowed the attacks to keep happening. If the news business had concerned itself with the actual news and not the latest happenings on Hollywood, I think that questions would have been asked that needed to be asked. The problem is, we kept being told that He would use all his resources to find the perpatrators and bring them to justice. Problem is, it was lip service.
Lewinsky was but a part of the Clinton administration and I find it hard to believe that multi-tasking was not going on. I believe that polls were being watched too closely. Had he not lied, the scandal would have been over. It was his lies and deceipt that dragged it on. He perjured himself..no one made him do that!
What angered me most about his reaction to the movie is that he again tried to cover up his shortcomings. The documents back up what was shown. He doesn’t get to chose what history remembers him by….I will again go back to the Terror Report they turned in prior to leaving office…OBL and Al qaeda were not the top of his list…did OBL even get meantioned? How about Alqaeda? If so, how many times.
September 11, 2006 - 02:14 PM on September 11th, 2006
6&7- Yes they had to put that disclaimer in there becsause they were threatened. They also had to do it because they had to write lines for the characters. We know that the events are accurate as the documents back them up!
September 11, 2006 - 02:22 PM on September 11th, 2006
#13…Is that what you really think?!?
“…the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue”
…and you say it’s accurate? What are you smoking?! Give me some!
September 11, 2006 - 02:24 PM on September 11th, 2006
“The documents back up what was shown.”
…except, of course, in the scenes that are admitted to not have documents to back them up and were created in the heads of the writers.
(!)
September 11, 2006 - 02:33 PM on September 11th, 2006
SanFran – it was a bit of a witch hunt, to be sure.
That being said – - it goes back to my comment about Clintons character. Considering the environment of the day .. why would Clinton be so utterly STUPID to think he could mess around with a 20 year old intern and EXPECT that it would be kept quiet? What exactly would Clinton have expected the public to do with that type of scandal, considering the political mood of the day.
It all started with HIS action…followed by his perjury.
I still think, to this day.. if Clinton would have ‘fessed up to it from day ONE, it would not have been the clusterfuck that it turned into. But, he chose to lie to the grand jury . . . again, what would ANY president expect the ‘other side’ to do.
It all goes back to Clintons OWN behaviors.
September 11, 2006 - 02:36 PM on September 11th, 2006
15- yes like restaurant scenes and such, but if you take the time to read the actual report(that includes following the appendix as well, that leads you onto an entirely new eye opener!) and follow the plot of the movie..guess what..they match!
September 11, 2006 - 02:37 PM on September 11th, 2006
And Lisa, let’s not forget that prior to taking office, he denied Gennifer too..that didn’t turn out in his favor either:wink:
September 11, 2006 - 02:41 PM on September 11th, 2006
SF- you still haven’t pointed out which scenes were made up? What scenes strayed from the report?
September 11, 2006 - 02:43 PM on September 11th, 2006
Well the scenes about the Clinton administrations inaction are well documented in history. The US did have the opportunity in ‘98 to nab Bin Laden – - the operatives were on the ground with Bin Laden in their crosshairs.. the Clinton administration gave the order to stand down.
That was not dramatization (well, maybe Mausood’s comment about there being no men left in Washington.. who really knows if he said that, or not – - but still a great quote.. and still very applicable to this day).
The bombing of the pharm. factory… the media and public speculation about that bombing serving as a diversion from the grand jury testimonies.. all of that is well documented in history.
While some of the film is a dramatization.. I believe Peejz’s comments refer to the actual documented occurances that reflect Clintons shortcomings during the time of his administration.
September 11, 2006 - 02:48 PM on September 11th, 2006
Peejz – if I had a dollar for every Clinton-apologist out there who will first blame the Republican ‘witch-hunt’ rather than starting at the SOURCE – I’d be a rich woman.
September 11, 2006 - 02:59 PM on September 11th, 2006
“…why would Clinton be so utterly STUPID to think he could mess around with a 20 year old intern and EXPECT that it would be kept quiet?”
You yourself said:
“Ever know anyone who cheats on their spouse? MUCH time and effort is spent not on the affair itself.. but on the cover up.”
…it’s just the way men and probably to a lesser degree women think and act when they cheat. If they thought of the consequences, they probably would not have gone through the actions. (!)
—————————————————–
“I still think, to this day.. if Clinton would have ‘fessed up to it from day ONE, it would not have been the clusterfuck that it turned into.”
I don’t buy that. Your team was out for blood from day one. No matter what the man could have or should have done, your team smelled blood and wanted to bleed him dry, so to speak.
——————————————————————
“…if you take the time to read the actual report(that includes following the appendix as well, that leads you onto an entirely new eye opener!) and follow the plot of the movie..guess what..they match!”
Yeah, right!
—————————————————————–
“you still haven’t pointed out which scenes were made up? What scenes strayed from the report?”
Dude, seriously, I can’t believe you are actually defending this! Put down the “I’m a partisan hack” pipe you’re smoking for one moment and read the disclaimer that the writers and producers put up more than twice during the show.
“For dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression,”the note that ran before the movie said.
The note said the material is “drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 commission report and other published materials and from personal interviews.”
Peejz – END OF DEBATE
Some real – some fake. That’s it. End of story. Put the pipe down!
September 11, 2006 - 03:09 PM on September 11th, 2006
Did anyone else watch the OTHER documentary on CBS last night running at the same time as ABS’s “Path to” ??
I kept going back and forth between the two shows…the CBS documentary was AWESOME. And real. One of the guys videotaped himself in tower 1 just as tower 2 fell…the sound was unreal.
September 11, 2006 - 03:21 PM on September 11th, 2006
22- No it isn’t the end of the debate SF.
1. I take it that you have not read the report cover to cover and folled the appendix
2. Yes there is a legal disclaimer on it, that was addressed.
3. They did claim to get the materials from a variety of sources. Everyone knows that the Report itself left much out.
4- You have no idea what was real and what was fake do you?
September 11, 2006 - 03:26 PM on September 11th, 2006
“The US did have the opportunity in ‘98 to nab Bin Laden – - the operatives were on the ground with Bin Laden in their crosshairs.. the Clinton administration gave the order to stand down.”
Source please.
…I only ask because everyone says that scene just never happened.
——————————————
ABC has said it will run a disclaimer four times during the broadcasts that declares, “The movie is not a documentary.”
That means: “The stuff in this show isn’t real”, for you slow people out there in RightVoices-LaLa-Land.
Having it bashed on your head FOUR TIMES just wasn’t enough to let it sink in for some of you guys, was it?
September 11, 2006 - 03:28 PM on September 11th, 2006
21- No kidding. Look Clinton did good things, I will be the first to admit it, but he also did a great deal wrong and inaction is #1 on my list followed by the pardons..that was wrong. In no way should he have pardoned Rich until after he had come back to face the charges. That was just a really bad deal..as well as Patty Hearst..funny how she got pardoned and 6 months later her co-consiprators were brought up on murder charges. I wonder why no other wealthy heiresses had been kidnapped, brainwashed and made to rob banks by the SLA…
September 11, 2006 - 03:30 PM on September 11th, 2006
Yes, it IS the end of the debate – apparently everyone but some partisan hacks just don’t get it.
I repeat:
ABC has said it will run a disclaimer four times during the broadcasts that declares, “The movie is not a documentary.â€
That means: “The stuff in this show isn’t realâ€, for you slow people out there in RightVoices-LaLa-Land.
Fiction, Peejz. Look it up.
September 11, 2006 - 03:32 PM on September 11th, 2006
Speaking of Patty Hearst, she was held in a closet in an apartment building less than one block from mine…
…little bit of local history here in my `hood.
September 11, 2006 - 03:33 PM on September 11th, 2006
25- Here is one source for you SF
27- You seem to be the slow one. The disclaimer is run for legal purposes. Nothing more, nothing less! I guess you end discussions when you can’t understand something?
September 11, 2006 - 03:36 PM on September 11th, 2006
It IS the end of the debate when EVEN THE WRITERS AND PRODUCERS of the show ADMIT that it isn’t entirely accurate.
Accept it and move on!
September 11, 2006 - 03:39 PM on September 11th, 2006
Another source and another and another
and another
September 11, 2006 - 03:41 PM on September 11th, 2006
30-No it isn’t and you can shout all you want. As was pointed out to you, the writers never claimed to have made up any of the pertinent pieces of the story. They made up dialogue of charachter etc in various scenes, but the story was not made up@!
September 11, 2006 - 03:43 PM on September 11th, 2006
Peejz, WHERE in your source/link (to your own site) does it say that – PER THE 9/11 COMISH – Bin Laden was “in the cross hairs” as portrayed in the TV show, with our Intel guys and the N.A. on a ridge looking down into his camp, ready to strike??
You’re dreaming if you think that actually happened.
September 11, 2006 - 03:47 PM on September 11th, 2006
Ok, peejz, why are you giving links for a 2000 event; when we are talking about a scene from the movie that shows the N.A and some of our guys on a ridge, looking down into OBLs camp but being denied permission to “take him out”…hence the “are their no men left in washington, are they all cowards” line.
Where is your link/proof showing we actually looked down into his camp like shown in the show?
You can’t, because that scene was made up. (!)
September 11, 2006 - 03:52 PM on September 11th, 2006
“The disclaimer is run for legal purposes. Nothing more, nothing less”
The disclaimer is also so gullible people like you don’t believe that everything you see in the show actually happened in real life.
…and so they don’t get sued when someone say’s “Hey! That’s not how it happened!â€
September 11, 2006 - 03:53 PM on September 11th, 2006
Either you can’t read or you can’t comprehend what is in front of you! Where do you think NBC got the footage? Where do you think the 9/11 Commission got the info?
See if you can follow this from someone who was there:
Regarding the scene, it was never clear to my officers or myself who canceled the operation. It is true that Clarke was bad-mouthing it. What I don’t think people know, however, is that the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level ” that is, at the level of DCI Tenet and his immediate subordinates. (NB: At Tenet’s direction, JSOC commanders at Fort Bragg also reviewed the plan. They approved it, said they could not do better, and built two sand-table mock-ups of the bin Laden’s compound for us to use in preparing the operation.) My officers and I were told that the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the Chief of CT at CIA told us that the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication to us at the time was that the NSC canceled the operation, but Tenet later claimed he did it himself. I don’t know what the full truth is on this issue. Interestingly, after our east Africa embassies were bombed on 7 August 98, Clarke ordered us to immediately revive the capture plan, but of course by then the chance had been well and truly lost.
September 11, 2006 - 03:53 PM on September 11th, 2006
Not letting you get away with this one:
“The US did have the opportunity in ‘98 to nab Bin Laden – - the operatives were on the ground with Bin Laden in their crosshairs.. the Clinton administration gave the order to stand down.”
Proof?
September 11, 2006 - 03:56 PM on September 11th, 2006
I thought in #34 you said: Where is your link/proof showing we actually looked down into his camp like shown in the show?
You can’t, because that scene was made up. (!)
and now you are saying:
“The US did have the opportunity in ‘98 to nab Bin Laden – - the operatives were on the ground with Bin Laden in their crosshairs.. the Clinton administration gave the order to stand down.â€
Proof?
September 11, 2006 - 03:59 PM on September 11th, 2006
#36 – Peejz, did they or did they not sit on a ridge, looking down into Bin Ladens camp and get denied permission to attack?
yes or no.
(everything you have posted as a link, says NOTHING about sitting on a ridge, looking down into PBL camp.)
September 11, 2006 - 04:00 PM on September 11th, 2006
Did you even watch the scene I’m talking about?!?!?
September 11, 2006 - 04:34 PM on September 11th, 2006
I most certainly did watch it. And in the last 15 posts you have tried to say that the scene never happened. The scene is of the missed opportunity to get Bin Landen. I posted the uncut version yesterday BTW. Now it appears you are saying that the missed opportunity did happen and we had men on the ground..you just can’t find documentation that they stood on a ridge overlooking OBL…
September 11, 2006 - 04:44 PM on September 11th, 2006
#41. What? Does that even make sense?
Peejz – YES or goddamned NO…
did they or did they not sit on a ridge, looking down into Bin Ladens camp and get denied permission to attack?
(Here, I’ll save you the trouble…No, it didn’t happen)
September 11, 2006 - 04:46 PM on September 11th, 2006
Be a man (for lack of a better phrase) and admit you are wrong and move on.
September 11, 2006 - 05:38 PM on September 11th, 2006
Yes it did happen SFL. It’s only too bad that you can’t seem to follow links that were referenced since that date that prove for a fact that the event did happen!
September 11, 2006 - 05:54 PM on September 11th, 2006
Peejz – You have NO idea what you are talking about here and you’re really making yourself look bad here. The burden of proof is on you and you have failed.
None of the links you provided say anything about this scene being true.
You have failed to back up your argument and therefore you lose this “debate”.
——————————-
1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.
2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.
——————————–
All I’m asking for is ONE official, 9/11 comish link that says we had US personel with the Northern Alliance on a ridge, looking down into OBLs camp, poised to attack, and were then denied permission to attack by Clinton officials.
September 11, 2006 - 05:55 PM on September 11th, 2006
I don’t think you even know what I’m talking about here…
September 11, 2006 - 06:42 PM on September 11th, 2006
Here’s the link
Dereliction of Duty
by Lt. Col. Robert Patterson
September 11, 2006 - 06:46 PM on September 11th, 2006
If Farenheit 9/11 can be called a documentary, then so can this movie.
September 11, 2006 - 08:08 PM on September 11th, 2006
Robert, thank you!
Peejz, here you have it. From the writer/creator, no less.
“Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.
Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,” but Berger, in a letter to Robert Iger – president and CEO of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co. – said “no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it.”
Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.”
———–
It. did. not. happen.
The End.
September 11, 2006 - 08:18 PM on September 11th, 2006
Yeah, cause we all know how honest Sandy Berger is.
September 11, 2006 - 08:53 PM on September 11th, 2006
Thanks for the link Robert. And I guess SF is also calling Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA, a liar as well. He was there SF.
September 11, 2006 - 10:22 PM on September 11th, 2006
Sandy Burglar is a known liar and kriminal.
September 11, 2006 - 10:26 PM on September 11th, 2006
From Lt. Col. Patterson’s book:
“In another “missed opportunity,” Patterson writes, Clinton was watching a golf tournament when Berger placed an urgent call to the president. Clinton became irritated when Patterson approached him with the message. After the third attempt, Clinton coolly responded he would call Berger on his way back to the White House. By then, however, according to Patterson, the opportunity was lost.”
This illustrates the real Klinton legacy. Klinton was a thoroughly selfish, self-absorbed, degenerate, derelict. He was clearly one of the worst Presidents of the 20th century. At a time when America needed a strong leader, it got a degenerate buffoon.
September 12, 2006 - 09:24 AM on September 12th, 2006
Peejz…you just aren’t getting it. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
We’re talking about ONE scene in particular that EVERYONE including the writer says, shown below, did not happen as shown.
“Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.
Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,â€
That particular event depicted in the show just didn’t happen. And you refuse to say so.
That’s a serious personality flaw of yours if you are unable to admit when you are wrong.
Shame on you.
September 12, 2006 - 09:57 AM on September 12th, 2006
Looks like the metaphor wasn’t completely grasped…
September 12, 2006 - 10:07 AM on September 12th, 2006
So you’re saying the scene was a metaphor for multiple failed attempts by Clinton?
…then you are admiting that the scene did not happen as depicted in real life, right?
September 12, 2006 - 10:30 AM on September 12th, 2006
SF, I’ve barely said anything to you and you’re already trying to back me into a corner as though I’ve been arguing this point with you.
You wanna try that again, or do you want an equally combative response?:neutral:
September 12, 2006 - 10:45 AM on September 12th, 2006
What are you saying, then, Sasha?
September 12, 2006 - 12:05 PM on September 12th, 2006
Thank you, Mr. SFL. (Had to step away for a bit.)
I’m suggesting you and Peejz might be arguing the chicken or the egg.
If I’m reading things correctly, the “OBL in crosshairs” is a figure of speech in the one sense, and metaphor in another. Kind of like “we were so close, we could smell him” though I don’t think they were that close.
I do think the scene is a great metaphor for the number of times they almost had OBL, including some other country offering him to us on a platter. Instead of making another miniseries depicting all those opportunities, why not just encapsulate it in one to say “we were very close to getting him”?
If anyone were to say to me, “they could have shot him that one time,” I’d say, “actually, they could have gotten him a number of times, not just like that.” If we reject the metaphor, we have to tell the full account. If we tell the full account, we don’t need the metaphor, but then that becomes the focus of the series, not 9/11.
September 12, 2006 - 12:25 PM on September 12th, 2006
“the “OBL in crosshairs”is a figure of speech in the one sense, and metaphor in another.”
Exactly.
Christ, that’s ALL I’ve been saying on this. That it was not a depiction of an actual event, like Peejz said it was.
Clearly, the filmmakers were trying to give a metaphor to illustrate so-called failed chances to capture OBL by summing it up in one fictionalized scene where they are moments away from capturing/killing OBL but are denied permission.
I don’t understand why Peejz could not accept that this scene did not actually take place. Even the filmmakers admitted so.
September 12, 2006 - 01:05 PM on September 12th, 2006
Okay, now, go back (please) and read the second half of #41–because I’m reading it a totally way. And I think the two of you may have been misreading each other.
September 12, 2006 - 01:17 PM on September 12th, 2006
My bad:
ops:
totally different way.
September 12, 2006 - 01:54 PM on September 12th, 2006
“the two of you may have been misreading each other”
I just don’t see how that would be possible. #33,#34,and #42 highlight in bold exactly the scene I am referring to.
I don’t mean to get nit-picky here, but in her #44 she replies to my point blank question in #42, saying “Yes it did happen”.
I swear to god, this is the dumbest argument I’ve seen here. The scene CLEARLY is not a representation of an actual event, the people involved say so, and the writer of the show even says it’s not an actual event.
I just want her to admit she was wrong, is that too much to ask?
It’s the principal of it…
September 12, 2006 - 02:14 PM on September 12th, 2006
principle
September 12, 2006 - 02:21 PM on September 12th, 2006
September 12, 2006 - 04:46 PM on September 12th, 2006
No I won’t admit I am wrong because I am not wrong SFL. The depiction in the scene we are talking about did in fact happen. We had CIA operatives on the ground and they were told to stand down. Whether or not they were on a hill or not has nothing to do with the fact that we did in fact have people on the ground that could have taken OBL!
September 12, 2006 - 04:48 PM on September 12th, 2006
54- The paper work that Sandy stole from the archives is directly related to the scen btw. Take a look at what Sandy had written on on the margins of the paper. The scene is a depiction of a real event.
September 12, 2006 - 05:37 PM on September 12th, 2006
Peejz, that’s f*cking pathetic. Seriously.
What part of “the writer admits it didn’t happen” are you not understanding?
“Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,—
Does that mean anything to you?
September 12, 2006 - 05:39 PM on September 12th, 2006
“The scene is a depiction of a real event.”
Even though everyone including the writer of the scene says otherwise.
You’re f*cking hopeless, dude.
September 12, 2006 - 05:43 PM on September 12th, 2006
66: I can work with that.
September 12, 2006 - 06:19 PM on September 12th, 2006
68- what part of: Berger didn’t slam down the phone was the only part that was made up, don’t you get SF?
“Sandy Berger did not slam down the phone,”Mr. Nowrasteh said. “That is not in the report. That was not scripted. But you know when you’re making a movie, a lot of things happen on set that are unscripted. Accidents occur, spontaneous reactions of actors performing a role take place. It’s the job of the filmmaker to say, ‘You know, maybe we can use that.’ ”
The producers and writers of the movie have said the script was based not only on the commission report but also on two books ” “The Cell,”by the former ABC newsman John Miller and Michael Stone, and “The Relentless Pursuit,”by Samuel M. Katz ” as well as personal interviews. They also say the script was vetted by lawyers, terrorism experts and former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the commission’s chairman, who is credited as a senior consultant to the mini-series.
September 12, 2006 - 07:51 PM on September 12th, 2006
So you’re saying, if I’m following you, Peejz, that while that was not part of the 911 Commission Report that SF is sticking with, it’s congruent with other accounts (I’m not sure if I’m making a statement or asking a question at this point).
September 12, 2006 - 09:04 PM on September 12th, 2006
One more time…:roll:
“Democrats have been particularly critical of a scene that depicts Berger refusing to authorize a mission to capture bin Laden after CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights.
!!!——>>>Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events,â€Patterson contended, however, the scene is similar to a plan the administration had with the CIA and the Afghan Northern Alliance to snatch bin Laden from a camp in Afghanistan.—
——————————
Peejz, why aren’t you addressing the fact that the writer of the show admits, in the above, that the scene – as depicted – did not actually happen?
I mean, that pretty much signs, seals and delivers it for you. The person, who wrote the scene, says it didn’t actually happen in real life that way.
I’m not talking about the phone being slammed down, I’m talking about operatives and the NA on a ridge looking down into OBLs camp ready to strike.
It just didn’t happen. And my proof of this is the writers own words.
Why can’t you admit you’re wrong here on this one particular scene with the NA and the CIA together??
September 12, 2006 - 09:24 PM on September 12th, 2006
72-Yes Sasha I am saying that the movie was based on other sources as listed by the writer. What I am also saying is that I cited one of the agents that was actually on the ground during this incident.reference #36. See how the man states that he was in fact involved in the operation that was called off.
Now go up to #4:That said, it’s just a movie; they admit that much of it is fictionalized and made up to be dramatic for storytelling effect.
I think everyone (Clinton, and wackos on the right) is taking this just a bit too seriously:it’s a movie. It’s make-believe. Pretend.
#7: Oh well, at least the writers and producers acknowledge they made up a lot of stuff in the messages ran before and during the movie.
25 on down is where it starts getting stupid!
Look at 27- That is where he claims the entire movie was made up!
33 is where he becomes concerned about out guys on a hill overlooking the camp!
35- He offers a half assed legal definition of a disclaimer
37- He acknowledges that Clinton did give the order to stand down(To the CIA ops on the ground ready to nab OBL)
He goes on to argue that those involved say it didn’t happen(You know, Like Sandy Berger) while in 36, a CIA op involved says it did.
SFL contends that the movie was made up, when in fact it was based on true events.
September 12, 2006 - 11:02 PM on September 12th, 2006
Hmmm…looks like what has happened is that SFL broadly dismissed the series as being ficiton. Then he kept narrowing down his argument, step by step, until he has focused on one single point (out of many). Demanding acknowledgement from Peejz on this one point will apparently serve to vindicate and legitimize his entire position by implication, I suppose.
As Peejz points out, the material in the film, if not exactly correlated in every detail, is legitimately characteristic of what occurred. At least the producers of the series put in a disclaimer to cover that.
Where was Michael Moore’s disclaimer in the F911 crockumentary?
Where is the “An Inconvenient Truth” disclaimer? The one that would point out that much of the relative information is left out, that only the data and opinions that support our hypothesis are presented.
September 13, 2006 - 11:20 AM on September 13th, 2006
The writer of the tv show and of the scene in question admits it did not happen as shown.
re: the scene where CIA operatives and Afghan fighters had the al-Qaida leader in their sights…
—————————-
!!!—->>>Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of events”conflation – the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation.
—————————-
Peejz – please address what this statement from the TV show writer means to you.
September 13, 2006 - 11:35 AM on September 13th, 2006
and some more…
In particular, some critics ” including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar ” questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.
In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.
“It didn’t happen,”Mr. Clarke said. “There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.”
September 13, 2006 - 11:38 AM on September 13th, 2006
Peejz, you are a goddamned coward if you can’t admit that you were wrong on the reality of this scene. period.
September 13, 2006 - 12:05 PM on September 13th, 2006
Wouldn’t the correct term be ___damned coward? After all, you’re an atheist. How can you invoke something you assert does not exist?
September 13, 2006 - 12:06 PM on September 13th, 2006
Richard Clarke is another malfeasant liar.
September 13, 2006 - 12:17 PM on September 13th, 2006
“Wouldn’t the correct term be ___damned coward?”
yeah, sure, that’s fair.
September 13, 2006 - 02:43 PM on September 13th, 2006
78- No I am not a coward. You are an ignorant JACKASS
September 13, 2006 - 02:46 PM on September 13th, 2006
I am so dissapointed. I thought SFL eschewed the ad hominem. Yet he spews it anyway.
September 13, 2006 - 02:52 PM on September 13th, 2006
I have been watching the “Path to 9/11′ series and what emerges as the clear lessons from it:
The causes of this tragedy included:
1. Incompetence, stupidity, malfeasance (George Tenet, Madelyn Notbright, and others (like that witch, the ambassador to Yemen. I wanted to reach through the tv and strangle the bitch).
2. The fallacy and idiocy of political correctness.
3. The the deep cancer and malais proagated into the process by years of Liberalism, attacking the ability of the FBI and CIA to do their jobs.
4. The overall failure of the Klinton Admin.
5. The stupidity of the Bush Admin. for not FIRING the Klintonistas and getting rid of them instead of allowing them to propagate the same idiocy.
The series makes very clear the failure of Liberalism. We need less.
September 13, 2006 - 02:58 PM on September 13th, 2006
“No I am not a coward.”
Yes, you are. You have been proven wrong and you refuse to admit you are wrong.
September 13, 2006 - 03:09 PM on September 13th, 2006
85- No I haven’t been proven wrong.
September 13, 2006 - 03:15 PM on September 13th, 2006
Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of eventsâ€
well, there you go again for the 1000th time.