The Path to 9/11 - docudrama or propaganda?

[BVS]

Oh come on, admit it now. You do to. I saw on your car, next to your "Honk If You Love Reagan" bumper sticker, a "My Boss Is A Republican President" bumper sticker.

I'm undercover...

 

[najeena]

Do you remember the skit on SNL years ago when the gamely befuddled Ronald Reagan, as soon as the cameras were off and the media gone, turned into a razor-sharp man of action? This movie's premise seems much the same to me. I've heard the Scholastic has now backed away from the film, and that ABC will do some editing.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

A review

By Matthew Gilbert, Boston Globe Staff | September 8, 2006

With all the ado about ABC's new docudrama ``The Path to 9/11," one point has gotten lost. While Clinton administration alums such as Madeleine Albright protest its perceived inaccuracies, and conservatives defend its bias, and many curious viewers plan to tune in to see for themselves, it's still not a very good piece of dramatic storytelling.

Like ``The Reagans," which CBS dropped amid political pressure in 2003, it offers the occasion for a political wing-ding but not for a very satisfying viewing experience. It's a few decently crafted terrorism set pieces -- the manhunt for 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef , a near capture of Osama bin Laden -- loosely strung together into the semblance of an epic.

The five-hour miniseries was probably doomed to fail creatively, not for lack of ambition but for having too much ambition. The story in ``The Path to 9/11," which premieres Sunday and Monday at 8 p.m. on Channel 5, is just too massive and unwieldy to fit neatly into two sittings. Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh tries to encapsulate the 9/11 Commission's report on the terror attacks (with the added help of two books and interviews), and he winds up with a globe-jumping mass o' plots. ``The Path to 9/11" never quite arrives at narrative coherence and depth.

Dramatizing the roots of 9/11 in a two-parter is like trying to fit the origin and politics of the entire AIDS crisis into one movie. Oh wait, that was ``And the Band Played On," and it failed, too. ``The Path to 9/11" would have fared better as an eight-or-so episode miniseries like HBO's ``Band of Brothers," so it could devote more focus to each of its many fragments. With the kind of time that series TV offers but movies don't, director David L. Cunningham could have made each of the pieces of his puzzle richer and more engaging.

The miniseries operates thusly: The 1993 bombing leads to a van which leads to a mosque which leads to an informant who leads to a cell which leads to Yousef who leads to Pakistan and the attempted assassination of Benazir Bhutto which leads to the Philippines and so on and so forth for five hours. (ABC is airing the series without commercials). Journalist John Miller's 1998 interview with Osama bin Laden, for instance, or the CIA's efforts to capture bin Laden with General Massoud of the Northern Alliance, could have been movies in themselves. But here they are diminished within a crowded canvas.

The vague through-line in ``The Path to 9/11" is FBI agent John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel), who was ultimately killed in the towers months after he retired from the Bureau. O'Neill is the hero of the miniseries, fighting not only terrorism but his own government's inability to properly fight terrorism. ``No one's taking terrorism seriously," he complains. O'Neill's intermittent appearances represent Cunningham and Nowrasteh's effort to turn the tragedy into a more traditional story with a central character, but the half-hearted effort doesn't succeed in tightening the movie's structure.

Most of the controversy surrounding ``The Path to 9/11" is about the way it portrays counterterrorism workers like O'Neill losing ground thanks to governmental bureaucracy and intelligence errors. In a letter to Robert Iger of Disney, which owns ABC, former Secretary of State Albright objected specifically to a scene in which she is shown refusing to support a strike against bin Laden without alerting the Pakistani government. In another letter to Iger, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger complained about a sequence that shows him similarly impeding the chase.

Due to many other complaints, along with a letter-writing campaign, ABC has said it is still editing the miniseries, which means some of the more blatant finger-pointing in reviewers' copies may not appear in the final product.

One egregious moment that is likely to remain, however, features Patricia Heaton hamming it up as Barbara Bodine , the US ambassador to Yemen. After the terrorist bombing of the USS Cole, Heaton's Bodine refuses to help O'Neill and his FBI crew in a scene that is painfully over-the-top.

``Mr. O'Neill, you are the epitome of the ugly American," she says. Suddenly the movie changes awkwardly from suspense thriller to psychodrama/Emmy grab. As Condoleezza Rice , Penny Johnson Jerald also strikes a wrong note, looking almost campy with a black mark pasted onto her teeth. Jerald, best known as President Palmer's diabolical wife on ``24," is arch here, as well. Otherwise, the large ensemble cast of ``The Path to 9/11" is good enough, and in the case of Nabil Elouhabi , who plays Yousef, chilling. Perhaps Elouhabi in ``The Ramzi Yousef Story" is in order?

Indeed, ``The Path to 9/11" could have great value as an outline for better stories to come.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html


The Path to 9/11" is looking a lot like "The Reagans, Part II."

Bill Clinton loyalists are demanding wholesale changes to the upcoming miniseries -- and while ABC is making some snips, the alterations, insiders say, may not please the Dems.

But a bombshell decision may happen anyway: Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether.

 

[phanan]

You'd think the networks would learn by now...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

On Disney's decision to refuse permission for its subsidiary Miramax Films to distribute the film "Fahrenheit 9-11":

"We just didn't want to be in the middle of a politically-oriented film during an election year."

Michael Eisner
CEO - The Walt Disney Company
May 5th 2004 on ABC "World News Tonight"

 

[deep]

ABC should just send it over to the
Fox Family and Ammo Channel

 

[nathan1977]

From the Variety article MrsS quoted...

"Criticism of "The Path to 9/11" carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled at CBS over "The Reagans." Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims.

Conservative drumbeat against "The Reagans" started months before the mini was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime -- a move that, ironically, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who accused CBS of censorship."

 

[Irvine511]

-- a move that, ironically, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who accused CBS of censorship."

oh, i agree. let them put on whatever they want. and let people yell and scream however much they want.

the difference is: i think Reagan ignored AIDS, but i don't think the Clinton was as ignorant of the Islamist threat as this movie would have us think.

so i've made up my own mind. a pity that neither the networks, nor the politicians, realize that most people probably have as well.

 

[A_Wanderer]

There is a difference between ignorance and inactivity.

 

[Lila64]

not gonna watch this piece of

instead, look for the Discovery Channel's hours of 9/11 shows, which I viewed a couple of weeks ago. Went back in time to the years proceeding 9/11, and the actual morning of 9/11, minute by minute, and then post 9/11. Quite fascinating...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I didn't watch it either, I chose to watch the CBS documentary instead

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I watched the season finale of HGTV's "Design Star". Much more factual and entertaining.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington has risen from almost a third to almost half over the past four years, a CNN poll released Monday found.

Asked whether they blame the Bush administration for the attacks, 45 percent said either a "great deal" or a "moderate amount," up from 32 percent in a June 2002 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

But the Clinton administration did not get off lightly either. The latest poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that 41 percent of respondents blamed his administration a "great deal" or a "moderate amount" for the attacks.

That's only slightly less than the 45 percent who blamed his administration in a poll carried out less than a week after the attacks.

Still, most Americans appear to be fatalistic, with more than half -- 57 percent -- saying they think that terrorists will "always find a way to launch attacks no matter what the U.S. government does."

The poll was carried out August 30 through September 2 by Opinion Research Corp. with 1,004 American adults questioned by telephone. The sampling error for the questions was 3 percentage points.

 

[BorderGirl]

I watched it, even though it was difficult due to the tight camera shots and it's claustrophobic feel. Also it was shot very dark or maybe my tv's messed up!
The fact is Clinton was in office when many of the attacks aimed at US interests took place and Bush was in office afterwards when more on the same continued. All of this culminated with the attack that finally got the most public attention: the attack on the WTC on September 11th, 2001.
I urge everyone to watch it, boring as it may be, due to it's straightforwardness. This may be a hard feat living in an age where we get our 'entertainment' from political bickering/righteousness on all sides.

 

[Pearl]

I watched some of it last night. It is more like a dramatization of the National Geographic Special "Inside 9/11", that is probably airing tonight. There's nothing much different from the NGC one.

 

[Scarletwine]

Ted Koppel's special on Discovery was excellent.

"The Price of Security" was the most balanced and fair discussion of what is going on in this country since 9-11. The first part was an investigative piece then he had a townhall part with Bush Admin. members, ACLU, Gen Zinni, Family members, and other critics and Bush supporters. He also gave a tour of Gitmo as it is now. Very thought provoking and intriguing.

Next months special will be on Iran.

Excellent on Discovery.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Editing changes made by ABC to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" were cosmetic and didn't change the meaning of scenes that had angered several former Clinton administration officials, a spokesman for the former president said Monday.

As for Clinton, he didn't bother watching the movie that angered so many people who once worked for him.

"He made the choice that most Americans made," said Jay Carson, Clinton Foundation spokesman. "Of a fictionalized drama version of September 11 or the Manning brothers playing football against one another, he chose the latter."

The movie was flattened in the ratings by the debut of NBC's Sunday night football, matching Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts against his younger brother Eli of the New York Giants. The football game had an estimated 20.7 million viewers, while "The Path to 9/11" had 13 million, according to Nielsen Media Research.

The ABC movie did, however, beat CBS' third airing of its "9/11" documentary, which was seen by an estimated 10.6 million people, Nielsen said....

...One scene, in a copy of the movie given to television critics a few weeks ago, indicated President Clinton's preoccupation with his potential impeachment may have hurt the effort to go after Osama bin Laden.

In the original scene, an actor portraying White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke shares a limousine ride with FBI agent John O'Neill and tells him: "The Republicans are going all-out for impeachment. I just don't see in that climate the president's going to take chances" and give the order to kill bin Laden.

But in the film aired Sunday, Clarke says to O'Neill: "The president has assured me this ... won't affect his decision-making."

O'Neill replies: "So it's OK if somebody kills bin Laden, as long as he didn't give the order. It's pathetic."

Another scene in the critics' cut showed O'Neill asking Clarke on the telephone: "What's Clinton going to do (about bin Laden)?"

Clarke replies, "I don't know. The Lewinsky thing is a noose around his neck."

This was cut entirely from the film that aired Sunday.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

How come this wasn't in the movie?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-dickinson/911-the-movie-and-_b_29188.html

"Given the partisan shitstorm over Disney's defamatory right-wing 9/11 docudrama -- and in particular the wholly invented (and now reportedly redacted) scene in which a quivering Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger loses his mojo and hangs up on a Special Forces officer who has bin Laden in his sights and is seeking permission to fire -- it's worth remembering a similar incident, involving a real Al Qaeda terrorist, that actually happened.

"In the buildup to the Iraq war, President Bush was repeatedly offered actionable intelligence to take out the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. As retired CIA officer Michael Sheuer -- the former head of the now disbanded unit that hunted bin Laden -- recalls it:

"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot... Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp ... experimenting with ricin and anthrax ... any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."

Gen. John M. Keane, the Army's vice chief of staff at the time, told the Wall Street Journal that Zarqawi represented "one of the best targets we ever had." According to reporting by NBC News back in March 2004, the question of taking out Zarqawi was instead "debated to death" in the White House's National Security Council. Why? As NBC put it, "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."

 

[AEON]

There is much we will never know about Sandy Berger and Clinton because Sandy risked a life sentence in Leavenworth to steal 9-11 related notes to Clinton from the National Archives.

Neither administration handled the terrorist threat correctly. The Bush Administration is still not doing enough, but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever done or are willing to do.

I found it a bit ironic that the terrorists-in-training we shooting at an image of Clinton. They never had a better friend and ally.

I am a National Guard Officer, and I joined up because of what happened on 9-11. If you think we can talk our way out of the Islamo-fascist threat - you are sadly mistaken. If you think we will eliminate the threat by leaving the Middle East or abandoning Israel - you are also naive and misinformed.

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.

 

[Irvine511]

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.

so ... keep driving your SUV?

 

[BVS]

Neither administration handled the terrorist threat correctly. The Bush Administration is still not doing enough, but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever done or are willing to do.

I found it a bit ironic that the terrorists-in-training we shooting at an image of Clinton. They never had a better friend and ally.

I am a National Guard Officer, and I joined up because of what happened on 9-11. If you think we can talk our way out of the Islamo-fascist threat - you are sadly mistaken. If you think we will eliminate the threat by leaving the Middle East or abandoning Israel - you are also naive and misinformed.

The only way to remove this particular threat is to destroy it.

It's post like this, that make me fear for our future.

First of all you start off by saying "but it is still light years beyond what the Dems have ever or are willing to do." This is such partisn bullshit. When have the Dems been in power when we had something like 9-11 happen? Bush wasn't doing anything more than Clinton did prior 9-11. But this is what partisan rhetoric will do, destroy perspective.

And then I love your "we can't talk our way out it, so we must kill" mentality. There is a lot of gray in between talk and war. But you don't get that. You also don't understand that you WILL NEVER DESTROY terrorism with war. Never.

 

[yolland]

AEON, what do you think correct handling of the terrorist threat should look like?

 

[AEON]

It's post like this, that make me fear for our future.

We should be at least a little afraid. However, courage is defined by the ability to overcome fear and do the right thing.

When have the Dems been in power when we had something like 9-11 happen?

Here’s a few: the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole.

And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two.

Bush wasn't doing anything more than Clinton did prior 9-11. But this is what partisan rhetoric will do, destroy perspective.

You are correct; both were doing next to nothing to battle terrorism. Of course, Bush was only Governor of Texas and Clinton was the Commander in Chief of the world’s strongest military. I wouldn’t want to destroy perspective…lol

And then I love your "we can't talk our way out it, so we must kill" mentality. There is a lot of gray in between talk and war. But you don't get that. You also don't understand that you WILL NEVER DESTROY terrorism with war. Never.

I do think that most international problems can be resolved diplomatically, especially those issues that revolve around commerce. However, there is no negotiating with a mindset that is determined to convert the world to Islam or destroy it. They claim this daily in videos and in radio broadcasts. You may think they are not serious, but I do not believe we can afford to take that gamble.

I agree, you will never be able to fully destroy terrorism with war – or with anything else. But we certainly can prevent most of it and minimize the weapons the enemy has at his disposal.

 

[AEON]

AEON, what do you think correct handling of the terrorist threat should look like?

There is a book titled "The Pentagon's New Map" by Tom Barnett. Even though he is a Democrat, it is the best plan I've seen to getting out of this mess. I highly recommend you read it, and I cannot summarize this book - for it requires an exhaustive reading to grasp the concepts.

The one thing that Barnett fails to include is this: Islamic extremism is currently enemy #1. Their agenda is global conversion or destruction - and they have not been elusive on this point.

Anyone who teaches it, preaches it, supports it, or acts on it needs to be stopped immediately. This isn't a game. Our future and our children's future depends on how we respond to this threat.

Our enemy does not care if you are a conservative or liberal (as a matter of fact, they hate liberals more because they teach behavioral tolerance). They do not hesitate to slaughter women and children. They do not hesitate to slaughter civilians. They will not hesitate to slaughter the very gatekeepers that let them into our pen.


In order for our civilization to survive we must admit there is an enemy that wants us dead. The next step is to properly identify that enemy. The final step is to remove that enemy.

 

[Scarletwine]

This is a new documentary done in conjunction with the 9-11 families. Watch it to see how much Bush did.

http://mediachannel.org/PressForTruth2.htm

 

[BVS]

And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two.

Pure partisan assumption. You know what they say about assumptions.

You are correct; both were doing next to nothing to battle terrorism. Of course, Bush was only Governor of Texas and Clinton was the Commander in Chief of the world’s strongest military. I wouldn’t want to destroy perspective…lol

I was speaking of Bush's presidency. He spoke nothing of terrorism, he had access to the same info, his father was in office right before Clinton, he knew and did they same that Clinton did. So there's your perspective.

But you can keep pertending it's different.

I do think that most international problems can be resolved diplomatically, especially those issues that revolve around commerce. However, there is no negotiating with a mindset that is determined to convert the world to Islam or destroy it. They claim this daily in videos and in radio broadcasts. You may think they are not serious, but I do not believe we can afford to take that gamble.

Here you go again, something you've done since day one in FYM, putting words in people's mouth. Where did I say, I don't take it seriously? Disscussion is useless if you keep doing this.

But we certainly can prevent most of it and minimize the weapons the enemy has their disposal.

We can also do this and probably at much longer terms if we find ways to eliminate the root causes. The root cause is not religion, if it were then why such a small percentage of Muslims? This hate is breeded in small dark places all over this world. Education, electricity, water are all pretty good starts, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 wasn't.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Originally posted by AEON


And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two. [/q]



do you honestly believe this?

well, by this logic, i'm going to say that Al Gore wouldn't have withdrawn support from US troops in Tora Bora in late 2001 because he wanted to invade Iraq instead and today, under President Gore, we'd have OBL in custody, or dead.

 

[AEON]

The root cause is not religion, if it were then why such a small percentage of Muslims? This hate is breeded in small dark places all over this world. Education, electricity, water are all pretty good starts, invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 wasn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Usama Bin Laden was a multi-millionaire.

 

[AEON]

[q]Originally posted by AEON


And if Gore were in office after 9/11 – we could have expected a few cruise missiles and maybe some bombing of a camp or two. [/q]



do you honestly believe this?

well, by this logic, i'm going to say that Al Gore wouldn't have withdrawn support from US troops in Tora Bora in late 2001 because he wanted to invade Iraq instead and today, under President Gore, we'd have OBL in custody, or dead.

Yeah, you are right. It is impossible to speculate about how Gore would respond. Thankfully all we can do is speculate.

Do you know what really confuses me? I can't understand why the liberals aren't the ones LEADING this war. The Muslim extremists are the least "tolerant"and the most racist, violent, misogynistic, homophobic, close-minded people on this planet. They represent the total antithesis of everything the liberals claim to be about.

It is simply mindboggling…