Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ABC 9/11 Movie.  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

You might have to copy/paste the link.

http://www.redstate.com/911clips

What do you think? Did these events happen?

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1228 times:

The bottom line unless one was working in the White House, how would we know if the events happen as described or is a product of someone's imagination.

User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2717 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

ABC admits that it is a dramatization and NOT a documentary. It's fiction created from "stories" that have not been confirmed. Good for scaring the masses, but as history...... NOT!!!

User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

That could be true of any adminstration. I think, after watching last nights show, that while no one was willfully or criminanly negligent, at the very least Sandy Berger and George Tennet should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly let the country down with their leadership. Since the decision of the importance that snatching Bin Laden would have entailed, former President Clinton should acknowledge his missed opportunities as well. This is not to absolve the current administration but lets face facts, at least twice the Clinton administration had Bin Laden in their sights and let him slip away. It just goes to show that you cannot fight the war on terror, or terrorists in general from a purely law and order approach.

User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting Photopilot (Reply 2):
Good for scaring the masses

Yes, scare the masses with a cheap ABC miniseries. Get real.  Yeah sure

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1162 times:

After watching this movie, I am very disgusted. It's evident that some of the gov officials from the previous admin have blood on their hands. Although some blame can be placed on the Bush admin, the previous admin totally sealed the deal for the terrorists. They just didn't get it, if they had done something about getting them while they were still a young organisation, we might not be in this war right now.

User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2063 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 4):
Yes, scare the masses with a cheap ABC miniseries. Get real.  

Whatever the purpose was with these miniseries - I honestly couldn't care less - they were not cheap.

In total they cost some hefty $40 million. According to the reviews it was cheap with truth. Perhaps that was what you meant? It certainly wasn't cheap in dollars and cents.

cheers

Asturias



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1132 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 3):
I think, after watching last nights show, that while no one was willfully or criminanly negligent, at the very least Sandy Berger and George Tennet should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly let the country down with their leadership. Since the decision of the importance that snatching Bin Laden would have entailed, former President Clinton should acknowledge his missed opportunities as well.

&

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 5):
After watching this movie, I am very disgusted. It's evident that some of the gov officials from the previous admin have blood on their hands. Although some blame can be placed on the Bush admin, the previous admin totally sealed the deal for the terrorists. They just didn't get it, if they had done something about getting them while they were still a young organisation, we might not be in this war right now.

Are you aware of the fact that some scenes in this movie have been invented as ABC itself has admitted? Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent company Disney, in a September 5 press release stated "that key scenes in The Path to 9/11 were indeed fabricated, calling the film 'a dramatization, not a documentary'." One of those key scenes is the one in which Sandy Berger refuses to authorize a CIA request to capture/kill bin Laden in Afghanistan which in reality never ever happened. The 9/11 Commission Report, on which this docu-drama claims to be based, reaches an entirely different conclusion when it comes to who's to blame for not capturing/killing bin Laden in that particular moment. (1)

As a number of leading historians recently stated in an open letter to ABC, "[t]he claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it." (2)

Unfortunately, it looks like these historians were right as people are taking specific scenes from "Path to 9/11" as facts when they are actually fiction.

(1) http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...11/cm_thenation/20060925path_to911
(2) http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/...9/leading-historians-call-for.html



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1116 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
One of those key scenes is the one in which Sandy Berger refuses to authorize a CIA request to capture/kill bin Laden in Afghanistan which in reality never ever happened.

Perhaps that's why that segment was edited out before broadcast. Did you know that? If you had watched you would have. The Northern Alliance commander was astute in asking if there "were any real men" left in Washington. At that point it was a legitimate question.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
The 9/11 Commission Report, on which this docu-drama claims to be based, reaches an entirely different conclusion when it comes to who's to blame for not capturing/killing bin Laden in that particular moment.

If you read the 9/11 commission report starting with page 113 you will see that several people failed at this point. As usual the actual operatives were confident of their chances of success. Also as usual those higher up wanted to make sure that their tails were clean and no one could pin the tail on them if something went wrong. A full dress rehearsal had been held and went extremely well and yet Berger, Tenent, and several lower officials all had misgivings. As a result it was a consensus effort not to go ahead because basically, those people were cowards. This is the way it was portrayed in the movie, which you didn't watch. This includes Richard Clarke, perhaps the biggest liar in all of the 9/11 debacle. He makes Brown of FEMA look like a competent professional by comparison.

edit grammar

[Edited 2006-09-12 16:06:59]

User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 7):
Are you aware of the fact that some scenes in this movie have been invented as ABC itself has admitted? Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent company Disney, in a September 5 press release stated "that key scenes in The Path to 9/11 were indeed fabricated, calling the film 'a dramatization, not a documentary'." One of those key scenes is the one in which Sandy Berger refuses to authorize a CIA request to capture/kill bin Laden in Afghanistan which in reality never ever happened. The 9/11 Commission Report, on which this docu-drama claims to be based, reaches an entirely different conclusion when it comes to who's to blame for not capturing/killing bin Laden in that particular moment. (1)

As a number of leading historians recently stated in an open letter to ABC, "[t]he claim by the show's producers, broadcaster, and defenders, that these falsehoods are permissible because the show is merely a dramatization, is disingenuous and dangerous given their assertions that the show is also based on authoritative historical evidence. Whatever ABC's motivations might be, broadcasting these falsehoods, connected to the most traumatic historical event of our times, would be a gross disservice to the public. A responsible broadcast network should have nothing to do with the falsification of history, except to expose it." (2)

Unfortunately, it looks like these historians were right as people are taking specific scenes from "Path to 9/11" as facts when they are actually fiction.

What are you talking about? So this whole 5 hour movie was just a waste of airtime filled with lies? They said some of the scenes such as what the terrorists did in their time were fictionalized, because after all how could the producers know what the terrorists were doing?? Scenes of the gov officials are based on facts. You show me one falsification on the 911 movie and I'll show you about a 100 falsifications in Fahrenheit 911. These producers don't n eed to lie about anything.

[Edited 2006-09-12 21:03:42]

User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1086 times:

Quoting Asturias (Reply 6):
Perhaps that was what you meant?

No, not really. I pretty much meant the series didn't look that good, like most things on network TV these days.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 8):
Perhaps that's why that segment was edited out before broadcast. Did you know that? If you had watched you would have.

The famous Berger scene was edited alright, yet the resulting scene as depicted in this "docu-drama" never ever took place. Reading the 9/11 Commission Report (as of page 113 as you indicated) only re-affirms this. Heck, it wasn't even Berger who took that decision but Tenet who admitted this himself in the mentioned report!

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 8):
This includes Richard Clarke, perhaps the biggest liar in all of the 9/11 debacle.

So the right-wing writer of this marvelous "docu-drama" has more credibility on the issue than a counter-terrorism expert who worked under 3 Republican and 1 Democrat administrations?

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 9):
You show me one falsification on the 911 movie...

I just did that. But here's another one (also discussed on these boards): "Executives with American Airlines say they are outraged at the depiction of the airline in the ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11.
Airline spokesman Roger Frizzell said Monday that the miniseries falsely portrays an American gate agent at Boston’s Logan Airport allowing a terrorist onto a flight despite a warning that he might have been a threat.
" http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/15494253.htm

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 9):
...and I'll show you about a 100 falsifications in Fahrenheit 911.

Did Michael Moore claim his movie was based on the 9/11 Commission report? Did key 9/11 Commission members act as advisors to Michael Moore? Did Fahrenheit 911 use actors to depict real persons and subsequently made them say and/or do things which they in reality never said nor did?

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 9):
These producers don't n eed to lie about anything.

I think this disclaimer which was included before both episodes says it all about the producers' need to lie or not: "For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well time compression" [Emphasis added]



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1053 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
The famous Berger scene was edited alright, yet the resulting scene as depicted in this "docu-drama" never ever took place. Reading the 9/11 Commission Report (as of page 113 as you indicated) only re-affirms this.

It never took place as-filmed. There is a difference. ABC fell into a very common trap when making dramatizations based on actual events. You are trying to film the events of months and years into a 2-hour movie. In this case, the events over a day or so (at least several hours) are compressed into a 10 minute segment. The cast of hundreds who were actually involved is pared down to a short dozen, all while trying to keep the central premise of the story in there.

So, While Sandy Berger may not have acted the way he was portrayed (which I agree is unfair to him), his roll was a figurative compression of the role of the entire Clinton administration, who collectively, when offered the chance to grab Bin Ladin, figuratively hung up the phone.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
So the right-wing writer of this marvelous "docu-drama" has more credibility on the issue than a counter-terrorism expert who worked under 3 Republican and 1 Democrat administrations?

Clarke has a lot of bad decisions on his resume as well for which he has not come clean, and an axe to grind. Trust what he says at your own risk.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
Did Michael Moore claim his movie was based on the 9/11 Commission report?

Did not prevent millions of people quoting it as if it were gospel. Do you remember any high-ranking democrat who protested MM's wide departures from the truth? Hell no, he even got to sit in the VIP section at the Democratic National Convention, next to ex-presidents.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
So, While Sandy Berger may not have acted the way he was portrayed (which I agree is unfair to him), his roll was a figurative compression of the role of the entire Clinton administration, who collectively, when offered the chance to grab Bin Ladin, figuratively hung up the phone.

That's the writer's interpretation of events (and yours', I suppose). But that interpretation is not supported by the findings of the 9/11 Commission. Of course, a writer is free to use his interpretation of certain events as he sees fit, as long as he clearly states so. With "The Path To 9/11" this didn't happen as it was presented to the American public as "just-the-facts", "exaggerated but true to the commission's spirit" (1) and an "objective telling of the events of 9/11" (2). It was only after considerable criticism in the days leading up to the broadcast that ABC started acknowledging that the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't the sole source of information and that some scenes were fictional.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
Clarke has a lot of bad decisions on his resume as well for which he has not come clean, and an axe to grind. Trust what he says at your own risk.

Clarke at least was there when it actually happened, AND he was a counter-terrorism expert with experience during 4 different administrations, 3 of which were Republican. That alone gives him much more credibility on the issue than that of an über-conservative TV movie writer who wrote episodes for Falcon Crest and whose only expertise on the subject is the fact that he once wrote a tv series called "La Femme Nikita" and which depicted a clandestine anti-terrorist organization! (3)

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
Did not prevent millions of people quoting it as if it were gospel.

That's completely besides the point. MM never claimed his movie was entirely based on the most important official government investigation of 9/11. ABC and the writer/producer of this drama did just that and did not alter those claims until they were confronted with their fabrications and proven completely wrong.

(1) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1220536-2,00.html
(2) http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas/index.php?p=462
(3) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0637493/



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 13):
That's the writer's interpretation of events (and yours', I suppose). But that interpretation is not supported by the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

I've read the report, and that is definately the conclusion I saw. Have you read it?

Do I blame the Clinton Admin for the whole thing? No. It is only with hindsight and the knowledge of thousands of casualties on 9/11 that we know for a fact that risking a few civilian lives in order to get OBL would indeed be worth the trade. Clinton clearly felt less sure about the tradeoff, and made such reservations know to his subordinates, who in turn refused to take a risk when the opportunity presented itself.

Imagining myself in his shoes, with what he knew at the time, I can understand his reservations, although I believe I would not have had the same reservations (admitedly, my attitude may be colored by the fact that I DO know about 9/11, and can't simply erase that knowledge from my mind).


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 997 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
I've read the report, and that is definately the conclusion I saw. Have you read it?

Yes, I've read it. And as I already stated above, it wasn't Berger who took that particular decision but Tenet, as he admitted himself. But that is not what this docu-drama depicted.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 14):
Do I blame the Clinton Admin for the whole thing? No. It is only with hindsight and the knowledge of thousands of casualties on 9/11 that we know for a fact that risking a few civilian lives in order to get OBL would indeed be worth the trade.

Exactly, in hindsight. Let's not forget the particular political atmosphere at the time nor the fact that several non-policymakers either felt "uncomfortable" with parts of the operation (Delta Force Commander), or believed "the operation too complicated" for the CIA (Lieutenant General Michael Canavan, commander of Joint Special Operations Forces). On top of that, there was the assessment of the lead CIA officer in the field that the operation would have a 40 percent chance of actually capturing or killing Bin Ladin, a percentage which was later reduced to 30. This lead CIA officer in the field even wrote that "there was going to be a point when "we step back and keep our fingers crossed that the [tribals] prove as good (and as lucky) as they think they will be." (Page 112 9/11 Commission Report).

In hindsight, this might have been the best moment in time to either capture of kill Bin Laden but that doesn't mean that that particular operation would have had a 100% success-rate as many here seem to believe. What it does tell, ironically, is that all other eventual operations since 1998 (and especially since 2001) must have had an even lower success-rate.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 983 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 15):
In hindsight, this might have been the best moment in time to either capture of kill Bin Laden but that doesn't mean that that particular operation would have had a 100% success-rate as many here seem to believe. What it does tell, ironically, is that all other eventual operations since 1998 (and especially since 2001) must have had an even lower success-rate.

An operation does not have a constant chance of success. It's kind of like Hold'Em Poker, where your likelyhood to win or lose firms up after every card. But if I recall the 9/11 report, the Clinton Admin folded with 3 Kings and a substantial pot already invested. Not the best of hands, but still a betting hand.


User currently offlineTNNH From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 976 times:

why did they have to further "dramaticize" the 9/11 report which in itself, is already quite dramatic. why couldn't they just have kept to the script?

i liked the scene in kenya where the CIA team picks up the one terrorist survivor from the embassy bombings.

typical, but sad, view of American authority-- big white guys pulling up in SUV's with big guns, roughing up a scrawny brown guy and than dissapearing again without explanation.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 971 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
yet the resulting scene as depicted in this "docu-drama" never ever took place. Reading the 9/11 Commission Report (as of page 113 as you indicated) only re-affirms this. Heck, it wasn't even Berger who took that decision but Tenet who admitted this himself in the mentioned report!

Excerpts from the 9/11 report.....

Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation. Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed. He was said to have described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as "half-assed" and predicted that the principals would not approve it. "Jeff " thought the decision had been made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger's doing, though perhaps on Tenet's advice.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.30

So it is clear that the scene depicted in the ABC presentation is a compilation of all of the above. Several scenes distilled down to one scene but essentially correct in their portrayal of what happened.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
So the right-wing writer of this marvelous "docu-drama" has more credibility on the issue than a counter-terrorism expert who worked under 3 Republican and 1 Democrat administrations?

Yes, because as described in the 9/11 report, given the chance to capture or eliminate Bin Laden, Clarke blew it. He did not support the agents on the ground in Afghanistan even though 3 dress rehearsals had gone amazingly well and the military thought that the plan was no better than they could have come up with on their own. Clarke, along with Tenet and Berger did more to help damage to our country than Michael Brown. He (Clarke) has no military experience, and no CIA field experience. He is a bureaucrat plain and simple that managed to hang on to a White House job. All that really tells me is that he is a good salesman.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 11):
I just did that.

No you did not. It is plain you did not watch the ABC presentation or read the 9/11 report. The CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan recalled:

Schroen described it as the "best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice."31 No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation.The tribals' reported readiness to act diminished.And Bin Ladin's security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.

And as to Sandy Berger, what credibility do you give a man that was caught red handed stealing from the National Archive? It is obvious he would do and say anything to not only keep his name clear but others that he values as having the potential to do him favors in the future.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 949 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 18):
So it is clear that the scene depicted in the ABC presentation is a compilation of all of the above. Several scenes distilled down to one scene but essentially correct in their portrayal of what happened.

The term "Essentially correct" can only be applied to which decisions were taken. It can certainly not be applied to by whom these decisions were taken nor why. You might have bothered to read the original 9/11 report, there's 12,999,999 other people who simply haven't done so and these people are very likely to take this docu-drama as factual, even more so since key 9/11 Commission members collaborated. That's deception in my book, NOT factual story-telling.

How about this scene, as described today in The Washington Post: "Bush is portrayed -- without any factual basis -- as responding aggressively to the famous "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." presidential daily briefing. "As a result of the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing, the president is tired of swatting flies," then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is shown telling senior administration officials just before the Sept. 11 attacks. "He believes al-Qaeda is a real threat, and he wants to consider real action. He specifically asked about the armed Predator." (1)

I don't know where the writer of this docu-drama got this alleged Rice quote about Bush specifically asking about an armed Predator but it certainly didn't come from the 9/11 Commission Report. But this particular scene is illustrative of the entire docu-drama; it's nothing but an attempt to blame the Clinton Administration under the guise of presenting factual information.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 18):
Yes, because as described in the 9/11 report, given the chance to capture or eliminate Bin Laden, Clarke blew it.

And exactly where does the 9/11 report state that Clarke blew it?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 18):
No you did not. It is plain you did not watch the ABC presentation or read the 9/11 report. The CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan recalled:

Schroen described it as the "best plan we are going to come up with to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice."31 No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation.The tribals' reported readiness to act diminished.And Bin Ladin's security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.

By his own admission, Schroen's "best plan" had only a 40 percent succes-rate! ("By that, Schroen explained, he meant that the chance of capturing or killing Bin Ladin was about 40 percent."[Page 112]) And this percentage was further decreased by other non-policymakers. Read my 9/11 report quotes in reply # 15 on this issue.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 18):
And as to Sandy Berger, what credibility do you give a man that was caught red handed stealing from the National Archive? It is obvious he would do and say anything to not only keep his name clear but others that he values as having the potential to do him favors in the future.

What Sandy Berger did then was stupid alright, although one could argue whether printing out several hard-drive stored documents to take them with him can be labelled as "stealing" as the originals remained within the National Archive computers.



(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/09/12/AR2006091201324.html



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 940 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
The term "Essentially correct" can only be applied to which decisions were taken. It can certainly not be applied to by whom these decisions were taken nor why.

Since none of the principals want to take responsibility then it falls on the writer to deduce through the evidence what took place. Since they all worked for the same administration, it gets the blame.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
That's deception in my book, NOT factual story-telling.

No matter what was said by this or any other writer you deem conservative, you would feel the same way so that doesn't really matter now does it.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
I don't know where the writer of this docu-drama got this alleged Rice quote about Bush specifically asking about an armed Predator but it certainly didn't come from the 9/11 Commission Report

Once again, if you had bothered to read the disclaimer, it clearly states that information for the series came not only from the 9/11 Commission Report but from interviews and other sources. The 9/11 report is certainly not the be all and end all any more than the Warren Commission report was on the Kennedy assassination. There is simply no way to include all the details of everyones story in any single report and the producers are to be congratulated on realizing that and seeking more information.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
And exactly where does the 9/11 report state that Clarke blew it?

It doesn't have to. That Bin Laden was alive on 9/11/01 is fact enough that he blew it.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
By his own admission, Schroen's "best plan" had only a 40 percent succes-rate!

But the chance of success rate went to 0% when Tenet and Berger, along with Clarke, effectively killed the plan.

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
What Sandy Berger did then was stupid alright

What Berger did was illegal and he should have suffered the same fate as any other common thief.


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 917 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 20):
Since none of the principals want to take responsibility then it falls on the writer to deduce through the evidence what took place.

That's where you and I disagree. When writing a "docu-drama" with the 9/11 Commission Report as the sole source of info as both the writer/producer as ABC initially (before the criticism) labelled their project, the writer's only responsability is to stick to the events described in that report and to the Commission's conclusions. He clearly failed to stick to the 9/11 report facts as indicated by the fact that ABC, after all the criticism, admitted that the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't the sole source of info for this docu-drama.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 20):
No matter what was said by this or any other writer you deem conservative, you would feel the same way so that doesn't really matter now does it.

And how do you know how I would feel about the matter had the writer openly admitted from the start that his "docu-drama" was not solely based on the 9/11 report alone? That is a completely wrong and baseless interpretation on your behalve. For your information, there are numerous outspoken conservative media who have also critisized the writer of this docu-drama for its' "inaccuracies" (conservative talk radio host Bill Bennett on CNN) or its' "zero factual basis" (Richard Miniter — conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”, also on CNN) (1). Would these conservative writers and radio talk-show hosts also feel the same, no matter what was said by whom?

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 20):
Once again, if you had bothered to read the disclaimer, it clearly states that information for the series came not only from the 9/11 Commission Report but from interviews and other sources.

That's what the disclaimer says. Initially, both ABC as the writer/producer labelled the production as accurate and based entirely on the 9/11 report. ABC told Fox News that the 9/11 Report was the sole source of info (2). Promotional material put out with a review copy of the movie even included ABC Entertainment President Steve McPherson's quote on the involvement of 9/11 Commission member Thomas Kean: "When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right" (3) An August 18 entry on ABC's blog about the "docu-drama" by producer David Cunningham states: "Our heart as filmmakers was to approach this subject with reverence and humility. We completely recognize that there are many interpretations of what happened. When ever there was conflicting accounts of what may have happened we would revert back to the 9/11 Commission Report as our plumb line." [Emphasis added] (4)

If the 9/11 Commission report was used as the "plumb line" in the event there were conflicting accounts of certain events, then how the heck did certain scenes make it into the movie when the Commission Report either gave a complete different account or no account at all of such specific issues? It's clear they got it from "other sources" but that also means that their claim that the used they 9/11 Commission report as reference is completely bogus!

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 20):
There is simply no way to include all the details of everyones story in any single report and the producers are to be congratulated on realizing that and seeking more information.

"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.’" That is what the writer and producer of this movie, who you believe should be congratulated for seeking more information, said himself during a radio-interview as described in the New York Times (5 reg.req; partially available at 6).

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 20):

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 19):
And exactly where does the 9/11 report state that Clarke blew it?

It doesn't have to. That Bin Laden was alive on 9/11/01 is fact enough that he blew it.

Bullshit! You referred to the 9/11 Commission Report specifically stating that Clarke blew it. In reality, the report states no such thing. You are doing exactly the same as the writer/producer of this docu-drama has done: you are using your own interpretation of the report and other sources to try and back up certain claims when the report itself gives no factual data whatsoever to do so.




(1) Videos at http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911&paged=2
(2) Fox News video at http://thinkprogress.org/?tag=Path+to+911&paged=3
(3) http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...D=/20060906/ART18/609060366/-1/ART
(4) http://blogs.abc.com/thepathto911/2006/08/many_interpreta.html
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/wa...ngton/07path.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(6) http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/07/accidents-occur/



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AFA Blasts CBS Airing Of 9/11 Movie For Profanity posted Mon Sep 4 2006 22:09:31 by AerospaceFan
Moores 9/11 Movie Makin GOP Nervous posted Thu Jul 22 2004 21:59:07 by Rsmith6621a
September 11 Movie? posted Sat Feb 28 2004 00:47:34 by ConcordeBoy
ABC Mini-series On 9/11 To Air 01/06! posted Fri Jul 29 2005 05:17:51 by Aa777jr
Sept 11, 2001: The Movie posted Fri Sep 20 2002 22:50:40 by Cerulean
Futurama Advertisment For Al Gore´s Movie posted Thu Nov 23 2006 18:24:14 by Columba
Best Buy 11/24/06 posted Thu Nov 23 2006 04:10:08 by Allstarflyer
Reason To Learn Some English (movie) posted Wed Nov 22 2006 18:49:02 by BR076
9/11 Pentagon Mystery To Be Solved At Last... posted Tue Nov 21 2006 15:41:42 by Alberchico
New Trailer For Simposns Movie posted Mon Nov 13 2006 13:13:41 by Columba