Posted on 09/08/2006 4:56:59 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
I once sat in a car forever waiting for my mom to come out of a grocery store. I thought that was the definition of "interminable." I had no idea "The Path to 9/11" was in my future.
This is what happens during 4 1/2 lonnnng hours of "Path." Terrorists talk about killing Americans for Allah. FBI and other security officials try to track them but fail. 9/11 happens.
You don't say.
This is the most anticlimactic, tension-free movie in the history of terrorist TV.
THE PATH TO 9/11'
Critic's rating: Zero stars 7 to 10 p.m. Sunday and 7 to 8:57 p.m. Monday on WLS-Channel 7.
It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore. ABC has received tens of thousands of letters -- including one from Bill Clinton's office -- insisting "Path" is wildly inaccurate and should not air. But ABC still plans to air the two-part movie.
Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.
An appalling secondary concern is the tone makes almost every pre-9/11 American look like a fool.
Look, there's a security guard yawning while terrorists plant the 1993 bomb at the World Trade Center. How dare a security guard work while tired.
Oh, hey, there's an airline agent checking in a 9/11 terrorist even though he has a carry-on bag. Stupid airline agents.
Excuse us all, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh and director David L. Cunningham, for not acting like Hitler Youth in the glory days before ordinary Americans knew commercial planes could be turned into missiles.
Idiots.
Cheap emotions are on orange alert. Of all the people who died in the 1993 attack, who does the camera focus on? Ding-ding-ding, you are a winner if you said "a pregnant woman rubbing her belly."
Harvey Keitel and Donnie Wahlberg portray key U.S. agents who give canny speeches about how they can't take out Osama bin Laden because politicians and high-ranking officials balk at giving them the OK. This is the big lie around which other lies scurry, according to both Republican and Democratic policy experts.
If you read some of the investigations into 9/11, you realize fault spreads far and wide, from FBI and CIA agents to politicians of both parties. "Path" depicts most of these Americans as villainous morons, rather than as flawed people committing errors.
The film uses composite characters and ignores some real players. A section centering on Yemen is laughable to anyone who read Lawrence Wright's recent New Yorker piece on Ali Soufan, who was the only Arabic-speaking FBI agent in New York. He was thisclose to busting the terrorists but got stonewalled by CIA agents who didn't share information.
Soufan was a pivotal point man on the path to 9/11. He is not a character in "The Path to 9/11."
Ground Zero is a sobering soil worthy of facts, not flimsy fiction. The victims of 9/11 deserve 2,996 times more careful and compelling filmmaking than what Nowrasteh, Cunningham and ABC have bored together. They are bearing false witness to the memory of the fallen.
Key scenes draw flak as false or misleading
More than 25,000 people have written to ABC to complain about "The Path to 9/11," penned by Cyrus Nowrasteh, whom Rush Limbaugh calls a friend. On Thursday, Bill Clinton's office called for ABC to "fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely."
James Bamford, an author who writes about national security agencies, told MSNBC an FBI agent hired as an adviser on "Path" quit halfway through production "because he thought they were making things up."
ABC's defense: "The movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible."
Most of the furor concerns a few key scenes.
Scene: The CIA and Northern Alliance come within killing distance of Osama bin Laden, but former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger is portrayed saying they don't have the presidential authority to kill. ABC reportedly has toned down this scene in recent days.
Reaction: None of that happened, according to the film's senior adviser, Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 Commission. He admits the scene is a "composite," as are some agents in the film.
"It's utterly invented," President Bush's former terrorism czar Richard Clarke said this week.
"No such episode ever occurred -- nor did anything like it," Berger wrote to ABC. "In no instance did President Clinton or I ever fail to support a request from the CIA or U.S. military to authorize an operation against bin Laden or al-Qaida."
Scene: Agents complain Clinton is too caught up in the Republicans' impeachment effort to act against bin Laden.
Reaction: Citing the 9/11 Commission report, the Clinton letter insists that he and Berger told former CIA Director George Tenet to get bin Laden. "Secondly," the letter says, "Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, 'Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaida.' "
Scene: Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is portrayed as giving Pakistan a heads-up about a U.S. air strike against bin Laden, allowing him to get away. The strike failed, and Republicans complained it was a political ploy.
Reaction: "It is my understanding that the notification to Pakistan was delivered once the missiles were already in the air," Albright says in a letter to ABC. "At no time did I inform the Pakistanis independently that a strike was to take place. The scene as explained to me is false and defamatory."
The 9/11 Commission report claimed the alert came from someone on the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Scene: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush officials are shown taking no action at pivotal moments when terrorists may have been stopped.
Reaction: Bush officials have not complained to ABC.
mailto:delfman@suntimes.com
Reaction: Bush officials have not complained to ABC.
Reaction. Republicans respect Free Speech, Democrats hold it in contempt.
The long and the short is that this movie disturbs liberals by reminding the people of the United States that ...
a) We're at war with Islamic terrorists.
b) Liberals are useless at defending us.
c) Without taking things seriously, we'll end up with another attack.
d) Yes, that patch of land that is vacant isn't part of a New York renewal project, and that yes, the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists.
None of these things serves to help the 2006 elections for liberals, and therefore, it must be put down.
Too bad for Clinton that the guy who carried his nuclear football briefcase and others have confirmed that not only did it happen, it happened repeatedly.
It all depends on what your definition of "ever" is.
Now that I see ABC has edited the film under Clinton pressure , I will take a pass . Maybe I'll watch a rerun of MY NAME is EARL instead .
Sounds like a carefully word-crafted denial. . .all of which with emotes a false ring. . .
Audio of John Zigler radio interview with Cyrus Nowrasteh, writer of Path to 911
File name: Cyrus Nowrasteh, writer-Path to 911(John Ziegler Radio).mp3 (MS Player format)
File size: 39.7 meg
File length: 42 minutes
===
http://d.turboupload.com/d/964042/Cyrus_Nowrasteh__writer-Path_to_911John_Ziegl.mp3.html
Arrow down to the last line of in the light green frame. When timer counts down, click on the link to access download.
Later, I'll try to find it and give the quotes and references on that.
Yes, and it is too bad the truth of all this had not been repeated more often. . . Repubs would be in less jeopardy today; as well as those who share the rest of our Country. . .
From the 9/11 Report . Chapter 4, Page 7:
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead. The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation.“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”He had been told, he wrote, that cabinet-level officials thought the risk of civilian casualties—“collateral damage”—was too high.They were concerned about the tribals’ safety, and had worried that “the purpose and nature of the operation would be subject to unavoidable misinterpretation and misrepresentation—and probably recriminations—in the event that Bin Ladin, despite our best intentions and efforts, did not survive.”
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
I wonder if this guy enjoyed farenheit 9/11? Where was the outcry from the left when that trash came out?
Do you have an authoritative source for this? Preferably with link?
I don't trust Kean.
If high-ranking officials "balked" at giving the O.K., then what is the real reason elite forces didn't kill Osama in the '90s?
The book by Patterson, who carried Clinton's nuclear football, confirms a lot of this. The 9/11 Report itself confirms a lot of this.
Sources contradicting the Clintonista revisionist history are pretty much on every thread about this mini-series.
According to CIA officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike might kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Ladin or close by. The lead CIA official in the field felt the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the UBL unit chief at the time agrees. The field official believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Ladin before 9/11.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4595501/
So what Berger is saying is: "We created an environment where people knew not to ask for certain things, and they didn't! So it's not my fault!"
Poor Bill Clinton, he's going to spend the rest of his life trying to get the world to accept his LEGACY
L ies repeated become truth
E nemies=republicans
G age every event by a poll
A ny US history "I was there doing good"
C onspiracy is the reason for my sins, errors & distractions
Y es, I am the greatest president
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.