The Path to 9/11

[CDsdad]

CDs Dad, you have just taken this way to political, something that always happens and now, I suspect this thread will be locked.

PS, I would suggest you not watch the movie.

As you could probably tell by my earlier post, I never had nor ever will have any intention or desire to watch the movie. However, thank you for your suggestion.

If the thread is locked and it is my fault, I would like to apologize beforehand. I did not post with the intention of that happening. I do not apologize for my feelings and opinions, however. For all I know others may have similar feelings and opinions and I just said it first.

I will also refrain from posting any more in this thread so that others may enjoy it, hopefully without the chance of it being locked.

 

[Chuck52]

This looks like it could be quite interesting to watch.

ABC.com: The Path to 9/11

So, RaT, what was your intention in starting this post? Were we all supposed to say, "Golly gee! Sure sounds interesting, but in the cause of fairness I won't think about it until I see it?"

My last comment was a general lament about the way facts can, are, and will be presented in such a way as to support, or at least suggest, whatever view the presenter has in mind. I may or may not watch this new wonder of clear thinking. I haven't read the 9/11 commission report and do not plan to. I did not read all of the Warren report, either. I keep hoping for really good Cliff notes for these things, but I rather doubt I'll get them. The central problem with any interpretation of the facts of such events is that the facts themselves are open to interpretation. Human interactions, and politics is all about human interactions, are not easily subjected to truely impartial interpretation. The exact same statement, heard by more than one listener, can have diametrically opposed meanings. There ain't no black and white; we're all kinda dingy. About the best we can hope for from docudramas is entertainment, and given the state of the country, I'm confident about half of us will be entertained in an irritated way, and the other half will be entertained in an amused way. The only real losers will be those who think they have actually been informed.

Chuck

 

[_RaT_]

So, RaT, what was your intention in starting this post? Were we all supposed to say, "Golly gee! Sure sounds interesting, but in the cause of fairness I won't think about it until I see it?"

My last comment was a general lament about the way facts can, are, and will be presented in such a way as to support, or at least suggest, whatever view the presenter has in mind. I may or may not watch this new wonder of clear thinking. I haven't read the 9/11 commission report and do not plan to. I did not read all of the Warren report, either. I keep hoping for really good Cliff notes for these things, but I rather doubt I'll get them. The central problem with any interpretation of the facts of such events is that the facts themselves are open to interpretation. Human interactions, and politics is all about human interactions, are not easily subjected to truely impartial interpretation. The exact same statement, heard by more than one listener, can have diametrically opposed meanings. There ain't no black and white; we're all kinda dingy. About the best we can hope for from docudramas is entertainment, and given the state of the country, I'm confident about half of us will be entertained in an irritated way, and the other half will be entertained in an amused way. The only real losers will be those who think they have actually been informed.

Chuck

Chuck, I have to agree with you completely. When I first heard about this, it seemed rather benign. As each day progressed it turned into something well beyond what I imagined. Folks were and are offering opinions that quite frankly suprise me simply because we have yet to see it. Based on past docudramas, I suppose we have every right to question yet another. My initial take was that it was there to give us a portrayal of how the terroists planned and acted out the events that happened. I do not point my finger at President Clinton and say you had the oppourtunity to get ***** and quite frankly don't know that any other president would do it differently at that time. Sure, if knowing what we now know about ***** could be presented to the sitting president, Jimmy Carter might even have gone after him. I have hopes that Governor Keene and others are helping make the drama as accurate as possible, that is what was being explained about this show when I first heard about it and purely my only motivation for even posting here about it. I've pulled my irons out of the fire on either party.

I concour about the reports, unless the Cliff notes come out, I won't read them either. I was hoping the movie might be the Cliff notes answer, but I suppose I should know better. Nonetheless, I will be watching it or at least taping it. You made some really great comments. RaT...

 

[Tom_H]

This isn't meant to be political. I just think the term "docudrama" sounds pretty fishy, what they call an oxymoron.

I support freedom of speech. I find an assasination scene of a president of any party to be distasteful, but people fully know it's fiction. A documentary should be as accurate as possible and without political leaning as possible. This business, though, of mostly following the facts but fictionalizing some parts to make it more exciting? Well, there's that movie called Eight Below-about those huskies and malamutes that got left down at the south pole to survive on their own a few months. That's what they did with it-based it on some real events with lots'a fiction; and so what? It makes a good mindless story to get lost in.

But this is different. This whole 9/11, terrorism, war, this is REAL SERIOUS STUFF!! No matter how much you use that little "docudrama" disclaimer, many people are gonna' assume that every little part is true. Now you can't make every last little thing true, cause you don't KNOW every little detail, but intentionally making parts one way, when you know the truth is something different? Now that's just downright wrong. I don't care if you're tryin to spin it to the right or to the left. It just ain't right. (And I'm not sure they're spinning right or left, but more likely spinning UP-as in HIGHER UP Nielson ratings.) People will know it's following the actual real events pretty accurately, and they're going to assume all the stuff said in meetings, etc. is accurate too.

People have all kind of twisted up notions of the Kennedy assasination, First Contact at Roswell, faked moon landings, because of loonie stuff they see on TV. I'd not prefer the "Hollywoodization" just so it's a little more exciting. MG, there's enough high drama in all this without that baloney; so what if some of the conversations in meetings were boring. So what if some of the real people ain't actually the "Pretty People". Getting as close to real truth as possible is more important than portraying the characters using actors who are glamor babes and pretty boys and trying to sexy up every line.

This is a case where gettin' as close to the real truth as possible is important, and intentionally falsifying stuff for ratings is past distasteful, it's downright unpatriotic! (I almost said treasonous, but when it gets right to the edge, I still have to support the 1st amendment.)

 

[milkman]

My prediction, Sunday nite will go off without a hitch and Monday morning, Showjob will come out and announce that due to all the controversy, the following part II is cancelled. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

 

[_RaT_]

Now that I look at ABC's ad for the show they have definitley been calling it a drama and a miniseries but I have not seen or recall where it is called a docudrama. I have found that, with the possible exception of Tom Keane, none of the folks involved in the writing Cyrus Nowrasteh, the production, Marc Platt, the director, David L. Cunningham, or the co-producer, Hans Proppe along with Cyrus Nowrasteh are not right wing nuts or even remotely right wing. Thats not to suggest therefore they are left wing either. At any rate, there has been enough publicity about it that it will probably have a decent audience. We could debate the accuracy of something we have yet to see or just see it and then determine if we "feel" it was a resemblance of the truth, whatever that may be which I doubt anyone here knows hard and fast. I for one want to see it. Cheers!

 

[Bob_Skurka]

Here is an interesting article wothy of calming a lot of political arguements. It interviews someone who was there, and it states that both the Clinton and the Bush administrations carry some fault. Seems balanced to me.

[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]

[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times]Friday, September 8, 2006
[/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Verdana,][SIZE=-1]DAY OF INFAMY 2001[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Clinton aide says[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,] 9/11 film 'correct'[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Producer consulted with military attaché[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1] who saw aborted attacks on bin Laden[/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][SIZE=-1]Posted: September 8, 2006[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][SIZE=-1]3:33 p.m. Eastern[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times] [/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]By Art Moore
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=-1] © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]A former military aide to President Clinton who claims he witnessed several missed opportunities to capture or kill ***** bin Laden says the producer of the ABC mini-series "The Path to 9/11" came to him in frustration after network executives under a heavy barrage of criticism from former administration officials began pressing for changes to the script. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]In an interview with WND, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson said producer and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh called him the morning of Sept. 1, explaining he had used Patterson's book "Dereliction of Duty" as a source for the drama. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Later that day, Nowrasteh brought a preview copy of "The Path to 9/11" to Patterson for him to view at home. Patterson, who says he has talked with the director seven or eight times since then, also received a phone call from an ABC senior vice president, Quinn Taylor. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it's "100 percent factually correct," he said. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]"I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur," Patterson declared. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the "nuclear football," which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Reached by phone at his home in Southern California, Nowrasteh affirmed to WND he consulted with Patterson and gave him a preview of the drama.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]During the interview this morning, Nowrasteh took a moment to watch as President Clinton's image turned up on his nearby TV screen to criticize the movie.
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]The director did not want to respond directly to Clinton's comments, but offered a general response to critics. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]"Everybody's got to calm down and watch the movie," Nowrasteh told WND. "This is not an indictment of one president or another. The villains are the terrorists. This is a clarion bell for people to wake up and take notice." [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]
[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=palatino, times new roman, georgia, times][FONT=Palatino,]Patterson pointed out the Bush administration also is depicted in an unfavorable light in the months before 9/11. [/FONT][/FONT]
​

 

[EddieWalker]

I keep finding myself suprised with the intensity of the attacks on the film from the Clinton team. He had a policy that he followed during his administration for dealing with terrorism that is clearly documented. His policy didn't work, but at least we know that. He tried and now we are able to move foreward and try other methods. I don't know what the big deal is. There are dozens, if not hundreds of bad guys around the world. Just because he missed a few oportunities at one of them, doesn't mean he and his staff weren't trying to keep the country safe. They just didn't get it right.

Bush is trying a different tactic. Wether his method is better or not will only be determined over time. I think it's working myself, but that's just my opinion. It's how I'd do it, but that's based on what we know about what didn't work.

Clinton is making a big mistake by bringing this issue up and focussing so much attention to what he did and didn't do. Having sandy burger as his source is just silly.

Eddie

 

[livincountry]

Last night we viewed World Trade Center. The Oliver Stone movie with Nicholas Cage. It was an uplifting movie more about the endurance and optimism of America rather than a blame game and conspiracy theory. The sequence of the tower falling with these guys inside the concourse between was very powerful.

These are such complicated times. The odds are in the terrorists' favor. We've divided ourselves and THAT is the biggest mistake WE have made. I really get frustrated that it's a democrat vs republican issue in the eyes of Washington regulars. Who knows what the truth is...everyone involved has agendas and the reality of what's gone on has become subjective.

 

[_RaT_]

Last night we viewed World Trade Center. The Oliver Stone movie with Nicholas Cage. It was an uplifting movie more about the endurance and optimism of America rather than a blame game and conspiracy theory. The sequence of the tower falling with these guys inside the concourse between was very powerful.

These are such complicated times. The odds are in the terrorists' favor. We've divided ourselves and THAT is the biggest mistake WE have made. I really get frustrated that it's a democrat vs republican issue in the eyes of Washington regulars. Who knows what the truth is...everyone involved has agendas and the reality of what's gone on has become subjective.

I was wondering why Oliver Stone made this movie given his conspiracy type movies of past. Low and behold, some Hollywood actors/actresses are now wondering the same thing and find his new movie work unnerving and they don't like it. They have been wanting it to be more Moore like. He let them down, he let them down big.