Comments on: Okay, Now I’m REALLY Going To Watch That Miniseries

By: macranger

macranger — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 14:41:48 +0000

Hold that thought Mark. In spite of Clarke’s denials, there WERE unit ops on the ground in Afghanistan, I know, I’m related to one of them.

By: Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » About That Docudrama

Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » About That Docudrama — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:00:52 +0000

[...] Okay, fair is fair (are you listening, Anonymous?). Think Progress and Richard Clarke apparently had a good point with their objection to the scene where Sandy Berger is shown dithering while the CIA has bin Laden in its sights. Earlier, I took them to task for what I saw as an unwillingness to face the failures of Clarke and Berger, and I stand by that part of my judgment, but to my dismay, this report in CQ confirms to my satisfaction that the scene is in the movie, and it’s as described, and it is in fact fictional: Richard Ben-Veniste — one of the 10 members of the independent Sept. 11 commission, whose final report producer Marc Platt credits with supplying much of the mini-series’ detail and narrative structure — rose to denounce the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger. [...]

By: JB

JB — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 03:50:38 +0000

When Michael Moore made a movie accusing Dubya of mishandling national security, a movie full of outright lies and camera tricks, a movie that was strategically timed to effect the 2004 election, the Dems rewarded him with a seat of honor at their convention. Anonymous Lib should quit crying.

By: Right Wing Nut House

Right Wing Nut House — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 00:27:00 +0000

AIR BRUSHING HISTORY

Desperate to see that the upcoming ABC mini-series Path to 9/11 places all the blame for 9/11 in the lap of President Bush and holds harmless the Clinton Administration for their massive failures in the 1990’s to kill Bin Laden, the left is in f…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:38:56 +0000

muckdog, as much as I appreciate your sentiments, I think the movie you want to see (as great as it would be) is not the movie this is purporting to be. By ‘dramatizing’ the events that lead to 9/11, I think, as distasteful as it may be, mistakes will have to be shown.

To be sure, Bush made some, Clinton others, but if the movie is to add anything to the understanding of 9/11, its subject matter requires some degree of blame-placing, as its source is purportedly the 9/11 Commission Report…

By: muckdog

muckdog — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 22:52:40 +0000

I think we all underestimated terrorism’s reach into the US before 9/11. Blaming Clinton for it in hindsight isn’t fair to Clinton or his administration. Good Lord, George Bush has certainly been ravaged in the polls by armchair quarterbacks.

Hopefully, this movie won’t focus on the blame game as much as it focuses on the heroic efforts of those who tried to help the victims and how the country united to come to the aid of New York and the families affected.

Or maybe the movie will make the point “Clinton: Soft on terror, hard on interns.” (Can’t resist a one-liner…)

By: retire05

retire05 — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:38:19 +0000

anonymous liberal, the scene may have changed but not the senario. It is well documented in Buzz Patterson’s book how there were planes sitting on the tarmac, engines running and a less than hour window to get Bin Laden. Clinton was at a golf tournament and refused to talk Sandy Berger and give the “go” word.
The left has made it their main goal in life to make us forget 9-11. Doubt that? Remember how the left screamed about Bush using references to 9-11 during the campaign? Why? Because the left is soft on terror and they know it.
Bill Clinton has gotten a pass on the terrorism that happened on his watch. Kobar Towers, the Cole, etc. If we remember 9-11, not matter how truthfully or how falsely it is presented in a fim, the left loses and that is the crux of their complaints. Any film, documentary or book is a reminder of just what it is we are up against.
As to the Reagan film, just how loud do you think the howling left would be if a movie was made about Clinton’s little tryst with Monica?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:07:00 +0000

I do think you doth protest too much, with all due respect (and for the record, so did the people who got the Reagan docu-drama moved to Showtime, I’ll grant you). The vast, vast majority of the population is going to completely ignore this movie, I suspect. The audience for 9/11 material is, as Hollywood has shown, pretty limited.

Even those who do watch will likely miss most of the nuances, unlike us political junkies…then again, maybe it will only be us political junkies watching.

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 21:00:28 +0000

Nevertheless, I think it’s amazing how concerted the effort from certain quarters is to discredit this documentary sight unseen. Let’s see the finished product before we go too far in our criticisms one way or another.

Mark, the same exact thing happened with the Reagan movie. No one had seen it, yet it was cancelled under pressure from right-wing bloggers and commentators. And that was a far less inflammatory subject at a far less crucial moment. Plus, doesn’t it raise any red flags with you that seemingly everyone on the right-wing side has been given a free screening copy of this film and no one on the left has, despite repeated requests? Wouldn’t you be a little troubled by that if the situation was reversed?

Well, this is not some made-up movie, it comes from the 9/11 Commission Report.

The movie is “based on the 9/11 report”, whatever that means. But it was written by someone with well-documented right-wing leanings, and is being actively pitched to the right-leaning side of the blogosphere and pundit world. Again, wouldn’t that raise some red flags for you if the situation was reversed? Especially just months away from an important election which is likely to hinge on these very issues? I am confident that if the shoe was on the other foot, the right-leaning side of the blogosphere would be up in arms.

I’m all for withholding judgment until I’ve seen something, but by then the damage might already be done. It’s just totally irresponsible to air something like this, without bipartisan vetting, so close to a pivotal election. ABC should, at the very least, postpone the airing of this “docu-drama” until after the November elections.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 20:44:57 +0000

Well, not the senator has a point. This is not a documentary; my mistake in labelling it as such…however, my sincere hope is that it will be, like United 93, a good faith effort to describe the events without a partisan spin.

Believe me, if it has such a spin, even if it is a pro-Republican spin, I’ll be the first to say so. As I said, I reserve judgement until I’ve seen the finished product…