...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

September 06, 2006

The Path To 9/11

The Path To 9/11 starts Sunday Night. I plan to watch it not only because it has been pissing off all the right people, but also because I want to see how Sherry Palmer fits into the conspiracy.

Posted by annika, Sep. 6, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: Arts


i think she's sexy, good actress

Posted by: Scof on Sep. 7, 2006

i think she's sexy, good actress too

Posted by: Scof on Sep. 7, 2006

Serious people understand that nearly all blame for 9/11 falls on Clinton and his merry band of light weights. (Every time, I see Albright I am reminded that Bill Clinton was responsible handing responsibility of the State Dept to an unqualified and amazingly stupid person.)

Until now, Clinton has successfully used his cronies in the media and government to hide his responsibility. (I doesn't help that Republicans led by Bush are unwilling to play hardball and place blame where it ought.) I'm glad these idiots are getting what the deserve for their inept foreign policy. Next, I'd like to see a mini-series on his admins responsibility for a nuclear N. Korea; or perhaps his fake economic expansion.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 7, 2006

Scof, time for your medication. Your second of multiple personalities is coming out again. :)

Posted by: elmondohummus on Sep. 7, 2006

"Until now, Clinton has successfully used his cronies in the media and government to hide his responsibility."

They are still hidden in Sandy Berger's undies.

Posted by: reagan80 on Sep. 7, 2006

It's odd that primarily rightwing commentators/bloggers were the ones who got preview privileges. Does that mean Oliver Stone also accurately portrays world events?

Posted by: will on Sep. 7, 2006

Forget Sherry Palmer.

What we REALLY need to worry about is how we're gonna catch Michael Scofield, T-Bag, and the rest of the Fox River 8.

Lastly: Much as I didn't like President Clinton, 9/11 wasn't his FAULT. It was the fault of Mohammed Atta and the rest of the hijackers.

Posted by: fatass the conqueror on Sep. 7, 2006

Please provide your proof that mostly conservatives were given preview privledges. It's not true. Both liberals and conservatives viewed the film. The liberals are the only ones upset because somebody finally told the truth about the Clinton administration. Clinton is consumed with his legacy - or what legacy he actually has besides banging interns. You are just hearing the squeaky wheels. The film also takes shot at the Bush admin. But the 9/11 was the result of the 90's and a disinterested President Clinton - not a few months of Bush.

The difference between the Right and the Left is that the Right is willing to admit that Bush wasn't perfect and clearly reacted to 9/11. The Left acts as if The Pervert was on top of things from Day 1 which is quite obviously BS.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 8, 2006

The difference between right and left is that when the left feels slighted by a movie the studios fall all over themselves to keep them happy.

When the right feels slighted, it's up to blogs and talk radio to set the record straight. They get no help from hollywood (that RR movie being the one exception that proves the rule).

Posted by: annika on Sep. 8, 2006

Oh, and when the Dems feel slighted by a movie, they call out the big guns and threaten to pull ABC's license. How's that for free speech fuckazzz!!!

Posted by: annika on Sep. 8, 2006

This shouldn't surprise anybody. This is typical of the Stalinist Left. Hmmm, it's also very similar to the control of information in Nazi Germany. This is an example of "fear" - this is the buzz word of the week for Dems - being used in modern America that actually deserves to be compared to Nazi-like tactics.

Good points above Annika. Remember that travesty of a film about the Reagans? I don't recall any Rep Senator sending letters with implicit threats to yank broadcast licenses. This shit is truly Orwellian.

What are the odds of anybody on the Left standing up and calling a spade a spade? Don't hold your breath.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 8, 2006

If people are too out of touch to read the 9/11 Commission report and instead believe what they see in a mini-series, they will probably still vote the way they had before. ABC states, "The Path to 9/11 is a dramatization, not a documentary", so I'll just put this in the Oliver Stone category until I see it for myself and compare it to the 9/11 Commission report.

The writer of the movie is an unabashed conservative named Cyrus Nowrasteh. Last year, Nowrasteh spoke on a panel titled, “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift.” He has described Michael Moore as “an out of control socialist weasel,” and conducted interviews with right-wing websites like FrontPageMag.

The problem isn’t that Nowrasteh is conservative. The problem is that Nowrasteh and ABC are representing “The Path to 9/11" as an unbiased historical drama. Promos for the movie say it is “based on the 9/11 Commission Report.” Nowrasteh claims he “wanted to match the just-the-facts tone of the report,” and describes the project as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

From Sourcewatch:
'Nowrasteh said that he "was provided an incredible amount of research materials and high-level advisors from the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Diplomatic Security, etc." '

How did he get such access? I wonder how many tax dollars were spent giving him pro-Administration spin. Perhaps because he is a right-wing film producer and the administration knew that they would spin things to attempt to take the heat off GWB.

The movie's account directly contradicts the 9/11 commission report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm), however, which states that it was CIA Director George Tenet that called off the operation, which itself never got off the ground:

"Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to 'turn off' the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.

"The CIA’s senior management clearly did not think the plan would work. Tenet’s deputy director of operations wrote to Berger a few weeks later that the CIA assessed the tribals’ ability to capture Bin Ladin and deliver him to U.S. officials as low." [11]

Posted by: will on Sep. 8, 2006

"...until I see it for myself and compare it to the 9/11 Commission report."

Good for you, Will. At least, you are willing to see it before passing judgement - unlike most of the Left who hasn't seen it and it passing around misinformation.

Posted by: Blu on Sep. 8, 2006