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.
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.
Sandy Burglar is a known liar and kriminal.
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.
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.
Looks like the metaphor wasn’t completely grasped…
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?
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:
What are you saying, then, Sasha?
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.
“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.
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.
My bad:
totally different way.
“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…
principle
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!
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.
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?
“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.
66: I can work with that.
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.
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).
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Peejz, you are a goddamned coward if you can’t admit that you were wrong on the reality of this scene. period.
Wouldn’t the correct term be ___damned coward? After all, you’re an atheist. How can you invoke something you assert does not exist?
Richard Clarke is another malfeasant liar.
“Wouldn’t the correct term be ___damned coward?”
yeah, sure, that’s fair.
78- No I am not a coward. You are an ignorant JACKASS
I am so dissapointed. I thought SFL eschewed the ad hominem. Yet he spews it anyway.
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.
“No I am not a coward.”
Yes, you are. You have been proven wrong and you refuse to admit you are wrong.
85- No I haven’t been proven wrong.
Nowrasteh acknowledges this is a “conflation of eventsâ€
well, there you go again for the 1000th time.