ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' Is Outstanding

I recently attended an advance screening of ABC’s outstanding, epic miniseries "The Path to 9/11" (airing this September 10-11), and I came away enormously impressed. Writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh ("Into the West"), director David Cunningham ("To End All Wars"), and the whole production team have done a magnificent job in presenting the complex events leading up to 9/11 with accuracy, fairness, and artistry.

The writing, acting, directing, editing, cinematography, and overall story-telling are first-rate. "The Path to 9/11" is fast-paced and thoroughly gripping the entire way. The five-hour miniseries (aired over two nights) is based on the 9/11 Commission report, and also on ABC News correspondent John Miller’s book, "The Cell." ABC is going to air the first three hours on Sunday, September 10, and the final two hours (which culminate in a shattering depiction of 9/11) on Monday, September 11.

Let me start by saying that "The Path to 9/11" is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible.

This is the first Hollywood production I’ve seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden. One astonishing sequence in "The Path to 9/11" shows the CIA and the Northern Alliance surrounding Bin Laden’s house in Afghanistan. They're on the verge of capturing Bin Laden, but they need final approval from the Clinton administration in order to go ahead. They phone Clinton, but he and his senior staff refuse to give authorization for the capture of Bin Laden, for fear of political fall-out if the mission should go wrong and civilians are harmed. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger in essence tells the team in Afghanistan that if they want to capture Bin Laden, they'll have to go ahead and do it on their own without any official authorization. That way, their necks will be on the line - and not his. The astonished CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan repeatedly asks Berger if this is really what the administration wants. Berger refuses to answer, and then finally just hangs up on the agent. The CIA team and the Northern Alliance, just a few feet from capturing Bin Laden, have to abandon the entire mission. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly thereafter bomb the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing over 225 men, women, and children, and wounding over 4000. The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence.

The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the “wall” put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies. The CIA is depicted as sitting in a meeting with the FBI (with John O’Neil present), and showing the FBI surveillance photos of terrorism suspects - some of whom will later turn out to be the 9/11 hijackers. The CIA asks the FBI for help in identifying the men in the photos, but refuses to give the FBI any of the information they have on who the men are. John O’Neil protests that it’s impossible for the FBI to help the CIA identify the men if they won’t provide any information whatsoever on them. When O’Neil tells the FBI to keep the photos so they can at least work on them, the CIA becomes hostile to O’Neil and takes the photos back. Tragically, John O’Neil himself will later die in the 9/11 attacks, in part because agencies like the CIA refused to share crucial information like this. Scenes like these really challenge the prevailing liberal media and Hollywood mindset by showing that the Patriot Act's information-sharing and surveillance provisions are crucial to the safety of this country, and that political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiency are Islamic terrorism’s greatest friend.

The acting is also excellent in "The Path to 9/11." Harvey Keitel is strong, sympathetic, and quirky as FBI agent John O’Neil, and Donnie Wahlberg is also sympathetic and believable as CIA agent “Kirk.” The standouts though are the wonderful South Asian and Middle Eastern actors who play both the heroes who help the U.S., and the terrorists out to destroy it. The actor playing Ishtiak, the Pakistani informant who helps the CIA capture Ramzi Youssef, is terrific. Played by newcomer Prassana Puwanarajah, Ishtiak is a shy, unassuming figure who makes a very unexpected -- but very sympathetic -- hero. The Ishtiak character tells the CIA that he's helping them because he is a scholar, and morally and philosophically he does not believe in the destruction of innocent life. Ishtiak risks his life, and the life of his young wife and baby, to help the U.S. capture Ramzi Youssef and thwart his terrorist plans. The Ishtiak sequence is one of the most moving segments of the miniseries. The producers told me that the actor playing Ishtiak is actually a doctor living in London, who does theater on the side.

The actor playing Ahmed Shah Massoud (the heroic leader of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, and one of America’s strongest allies in that area) is also an inspired piece of casting. Actor Mido Hamada looks remarkably like Massoud, and is highly effective at playing the noble and charismatic leader. The producers informed me that Hamada, who is quite handsome, has been the particular favorite of ladies at the advance screenings. The Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban are also very well cast. The actors playing Ramzi Youssef (Nabil Elouhabi of "Eastenders"), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (Michael Benyaer of "24"), and Mohammed Atta (Martin Brody) do a fine job portraying characters who are three dimensional and non-stereotypical in their villainy.

"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood’s depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we’re in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses. FrontPage Magazine ran an excellent interview recently with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make clear why I’m so excited about this miniseries:

"Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes “how we got there” going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O’Neill and others, who after the Œ93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks ‹ but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened.

FP: When you refer to the failed effort to stop Bin Laden in the 1990s, this was obviously the time of Bill Clinton. How much do you think his administration made us vulnerable to 9/11?

Nowrasteh: The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response ‹ or lack of response ‹ to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

Fortunately, Nowrasteh and the producers of this miniseries have gone out on a limb to honestly and fairly depict how Clinton-era inaction, political correctness, and bureaucratic inefficiency allowed the 9/11 conspiracy to metastasize. Let me say here though that "The Path to 9/11" is not a partisan miniseries or a “conservative” miniseries. It simply presents the facts in an honest and straightforward manner (the producers have backed up every detail of the miniseries with copious amounts of research and documentation), and the facts are that for seven years, from 1993 to 2000, the Clinton administration bungled the handling of the world-wide terrorist threat. The miniseries is equally honest in depicting the Bush administration. It shows a few points where administration officials, following in the tradition of the Clinton years, do not follow certain clues about the terrorist plot as zealously as they should have. Nonetheless, "The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

"The Path to 9/11" does a tremendous job in bringing to life the complex web of international characters and organizations that lay behind the events of that tragic day. ABC has created a miniseries that is truly epic in scope - a richly textured tapestry that weaves together a fascinating array of people, places, organizations and events both here in America and around the world. I was impressed by how vivid every character was, however briefly he or she may have been on the screen - and how quickly, clearly, and economically Nowrasteh and Cunningham depicted complex events. I absolutely loved the on-location work they did, and the great character actors of every nationality that they brought together. Cyrus Nowrasteh's background as an Iranian-American seems in particular to have given him a special insight into both the Middle-Eastern and American aspects of the story. Director David Cunningham, the son of a missionary, also brings an obvious love of foreign cultures and locales to his direction. The result is an engrossing, atmospheric tale of foreign intrigue. It was fascinating to see the crowded urban slums of Pakistan where the CIA captured Ramzi Youssef, the desert fortresses of the Taliban and Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, the Manila nightclubs where the 9/11 hijackers planned their attacks, the Tanzanian locales where the embassies were blown up, the meetings of the terrorists in Spain, and the various locations across America where the conspiracy comes together.

Let me wrap up by saying that what I truly loved about "The Path to 9/11" was the following: the honesty with which it told the story behind 9/11 with all its political ramifications; the epic scope and sweep of the story; the vivid and interesting characters of all nationalities; the great use of international locations; the terrific use of ethnic source music in tying the segments together and giving the miniseries a musical, propulsive pace (often reminding me of the musical quality of such 1940s Warner Brothers classics as "Casablanca" and "The Sea Hawk"); and the outstanding cinematography and editing (the miniseries has a great documentary-realist style that comes from director David Cunningham’s background as a documentarian). Cyrus Nowrasteh tells me that they had five cameras shooting at all times, which accounts for the great natural moments they caught between the actors, and the swift pace of the storytelling.

Overall, I thought "The Path to 9/11" was infinitely better than Oliver Stone’s "World Trade Center" (granted, Stone decided to tell a narrower story), and if this is properly marketed, ABC should have a huge hit on its hands. The problem is that I don’t see ABC marketing it at all, and I’m concerned that they’re dropping the ball on getting the word out about this show. They’ve reportedly spent more than $40 million producing "The Path to 9/11," and yet I see little advertising or promotion anywhere. Conservatives need to really step in here and spread the word via talk radio and the internet. Every American, and everyone alarmed by Islamic terrorism around the world should see this miniseries. "The Path to 9/11" should get every Emmy award and Golden Globe award out there - if Hollywood is willing to be fair and open-minded.

I’m highly encouraged by the ad that 84 Hollywood filmmakers and celebrities took out on August 17 in the Los Angeles Times denouncing Hamas and Hezbollah, and I’m thrilled by this ABC miniseries. I hope this heralds a new, saner approach on the part of Hollywood toward the world-wide problem of Islamo-fascism -- one that recognizes Islamic terrorism for what it is, and is willing to denounce it so that better things, such as democracy, civil rights, women’s rights, and free speech -- can take its place. These are issues that all conservatives and liberals can get behind, and I’m glad to see that the entertainment industry is finally, at least in these two instances, uniting for the greater good of this country and for the noble cause of democracy around the world.

Mrs. Murty is an independent filmmaker, co-artistic director of the Liberty Film Festival, and a contributor to LIBERTAS, the premier on-line forum for conservative discussion on film.

Thanks, How ... not to be missed and definite live threads. I hope they lay it all out .. all the despicable shamelessness of Clinton and cabal ... the deadly sins of omission and commission. I somehow still wonder if the network of Brian Ross really will.

(PS .. CNN is running OBL special right now.)

``````````````````````````````````````````

Lest we forget that vile person ... always sermonizing and rationalizing, perpetually feigning how hard he worked to protect us, when all the while his cowardice, uncontrollable sociopathic bent and pathological narcissistic lust for adulation rule his every move. (Bringing up another point: what kind of woman would be attracted to this diabolically brilliant misfit?? But I digress .........)

Clinton Signed Off on Berger bin Laden Blunders

"Documents uncovered by the 9/11 Commission suggest that disgraced former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger vetoed several attacks planned in 1999 and 2000 on Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan hideouts.

But while Berger may have advised against attacking bin Laden, remarks by President Clinton two years ago indicate that he personally quashed the plans.

As first detailed by the New York Sun on Friday, the 9/11 Commission report cites a document detailing a June 1999 plan to launch cruise missiles into a bin Laden encampment known as Tarnak Farms.

In notes handwritten in the margin, Berger cited "the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties," then warned, "if he responds, we’re blamed."

In February 2002 President Clinton discussed what sounded like the same plan to target Tarnak Farms, which is located near Khandahar. [In his version, Clinton inflated the potential casualties from 65 to 200.]

"The real issue is should we have attacked the al-Qaida network in 1999 or in 2000 in Afghanistan," he told a Long Island business group two years ago.

"The only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar, where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children. So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him."

Clinton continued:

"Now, after he murdered 3,100 of our people and others who came to our country seeking their livelihood you may say, 'Well, Mr. President, you should have killed those 200 women and children.' But at the time we didn't think he had the capacity to do that. And no one thought that I should do that. Although I take full responsibility for it."

According to the Commission, Berger advised against at least three other plans to capture or kill bin Laden during the same 1999-2000 time frame.

But in his 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he made the final call on at least one of those plans to snare the al-Qaida leader.

"We actually trained to do this. I actually trained people to do this. We trained people," the ex-president recalled.

"But in order to do it, we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat - maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval. And we would have had to do a refueling stop."

Without mentioning Berger, Clinton said that "the military recommended against it [because] there was a high probability that it wouldn't succeed."

In his April 8, 2004, testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Clinton took two aides with him: longtime damage controller Bruce Lindsey - and Sandy Berger."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More background .... sad excerpt (amazing ..the things we don't know --- so many cogs in the machine. I can only imagine all the behind-the-scenes intrigue and treachery of the last 5 years, not to mention the handiwork of the CIA rogues .. wonder if we'll ever know.) :

The Tragedy of Abdul Haq - Commentary / Robert McFarlane / Wall Street Journal 2nov01

Mr. McFarlane served from 1983 to 1985 as President Reagan's national security adviser.

"Abdul Haq

More than a year ago it became clear to any casual reader of news from Afghanistan that there was growing opposition to the Taliban. The resistance came not just from the Northern Alliance, but from villagers and fighters throughout the country, especially in southern Pashtun areas. This ought to have been a clear signal that the Taliban were vulnerable, and that the opposition could play a critical role in bringing them down.

It should have led the CIA to engage with grass-roots opposition, to support and nurture people like Abdul Haq, a commander who last week was caught and executed by the Taliban.

Unfortunately no such effort was made. And therein lies a scandalous, tragic story of bureaucratic incompetence with profound implications for our national security in the years ahead. Let me go back to the beginning.

Respected Commander

At about this time last year, I was approached by Joseph Ritchie, a successful Chicago businessman and friend who had spent much of his childhood in Afghanistan. He shared my sense of the potential for Afghans to take back their country from the Taliban, and asked my advice as to how they ought to go about it.

I felt that the organizing and support of any effort to bring down the Taliban was beyond the means of, and inappropriate for, private sponsors. It was a role for governments, and I offered to help him bring the concept to the attention of appropriate officials in Washington.

Together we first reconnected with one of the most successful commanders from the struggle to force the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in the 1980s, Abdul Haq. I had first met Haq while serving as President Reagan's national security adviser in 1984. When he came to the White House, Haq had already established a reputation as a courageous combat leader and brilliant tactician. President Reagan and later Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were equally impressed.

Through our talks over the next several months, culminating in February of this year, I became convinced that with fairly modest support Haq and 50 to 60 of his fellow commanders had the forces, and the necessary skill and determination, to take on the Taliban.

I believed, however, that parallel to his military campaign, there needed to be a political framework -- a process to form a post-Taliban government -- that would bring civil order back to the country and manage its reconstruction. Abdul Haq and Joe Ritchie agreed and devoted several months to enlisting the former king of Afghanistan, Zahir Shah, to serve as the catalyst and moral foundation of this process.

We received attentive hearings and encouragement at the departments of State and Defense, as well as the White House. In each case, however, we were told that the CIA had responsibility for this mission. Unfortunately, the CIA made it clear that it was reluctant to take on the assignment.

In a series of meetings, we urged that CIA officials begin planning with proven commanders with well-documented track records. They responded with flimsy criticism of the commanders, all of it based on hearsay. Disclaiming any personal stake in our preferred nominees, we then asked only that they go into the field and do their own due diligence, and especially talk to the dozens of commanders who were disposed to help.

To this we received only dismissive comments and indifference. In one astonishing exchange we were told, to paraphrase, "We don't yet have our marching orders concerning U.S. policy; it may be that we will end up dealing with the Taliban." Such an attitude obviously turns the mission of intelligence gathering -- to inform policy makers -- on its head.

Faced with this persistent recalcitrance, Haq -- who had been reluctant to seek U.S. help and never expected to get it -- decided in mid-August to go ahead and launch operations in Afghanistan. He returned to Peshawar, Pakistan, to make final preparations.

After six weeks' work coordinating with other commanders, and a short trip to Rome to coordinate with the king, on Oct. 21 he re-entered Afghanistan and headed for Jalalabad. He knew that he had been under surveillance by Taliban operatives in Peshawar and was very vulnerable, but believed he could evade them and join up with his colleagues.

Unfortunately, due to his popularity, he was recognized -- and compromised -- as he transited villages along his way. After four days, while proceeding with his party up a narrow road in the mountains near Jalalabad, he was ambushed.

While under attack his nephew, a member of the group, called Joe Ritchie's brother, James, in Peshawar and asked, "Can you do something?" James called me, and I, in turn, called the CIA operations center. An unmanned surveillance aircraft was vectored to the battle area. It successfully attacked a convoy at some distance from the ambush, but by then, almost five hours later, Haq had already been captured. The next day the Taliban executed him."

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.

NC *Ping*

NC Ping