Path to 9/11 has the left ticked off

Valid complaints or unwilling to accept responsibility?

Published on September 10, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

ABC's upcoming TV movie, "Path to 9/11" has some portions that are quite critical of the Clinton administration. One part in particular has Clinton and Democrats up in arms.

The part in question has to do with a missed opportunity to take out Bin Laden in the late 90s. In the unedited version of the movie, CIA agents request permission to capture Bin Laden. The agents are refused citing fear of accidentally killing him and the US being condemned internationally for "assasination" as well as risks to civilians.

The Clinton administration denies this ever happened. The CIA source used in the movie claims it definitely happened. Other CIA sources claim that it happened as well.

But the reality is, like many things, somewhere in between. The movie blames Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright but the CIA isn't sure who exactly killed the mission only that it came from the white house.

Or put another way, the left is unhappy about the details but wants everyone to ignore the general truth of the matter.

Comments (Page 1)

Draginol

on Sep 10, 2006

Here's a link to some of the missing clips:

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

terpfan1980

on Sep 10, 2006

I wrote on this topic just a few days ago, but it seems to keep getting worse for the left as they veil threats against the broadcasters and have their lawyers (in the case of Bubba Bill Clinton) fire off letters demanding that the film be banished from potential viewing.

With this coming so relatively close to the general elections, it's just a piece in the puzzle that may make or break The Republicans are Doomed predictions.

As some others answered in their comments to your post on that topic, given the alternative (having the Democrats take control of one or more chambers of the Congress) and the serious dangers that could be done to our economy, and to our national security if they do, I still think there is a long way to go before we see the massive turnover that some have predicted, others have hoped for, and some expect.

Ionolast

on Sep 10, 2006

They're taking it too seriously. It's a Hollywood movie, not a documentary.

Someone on TV last night said it's more critical of the Bush administration than Clinton.

Locamama

on Sep 10, 2006

I think the main issue is the deliberate factual inaccuracies that were added to add drama. How far does creative license go?

cactoblasta

on Sep 10, 2006

They're taking it too seriously. It's a Hollywood movie, not a documentary.

Why should that make a difference? If you made a film about WWII prison camps and then claimed that Japan was just misunderstood your manipulation of historical facts would be called into question.

It shouldn't be any different for telemovies. Hypocrisy is all well and good, but we should show at least the appearance of concern for consistency, and that means either permitting everything, no matter how false, in favour of the story or keeping to the historical account wherever possible.

For 9/11, where so much is known, it doesn't seem to be necessary to go round manufacturing drama. It was a pretty dramatic day; why make stuff up?

eieio

on Sep 10, 2006

cactoblasta:

The issue isn't so much about getting the facts straight, although that may have been the starting point, as much as it is about what this story has become. Namely, with former Clinton administation officials threatening to yank licenses from broadcasters unless the movie is altered, it gives the appearance of trying to cover up the Clinton adminstration's complicity in failing to prevent 911 from happening.

Whether the Clinton administration failed in preventing 911 or not has become secondary to what appears as an attempt to hide the facts.

Government officials, former or otherwise, generally don't threaten to pull broadcasting licenses for producing fiction.

Ionolast

on Sep 10, 2006

I think the main issue is the deliberate factual inaccuracies that were added to add drama. How far does creative license go?

Maybe I should have written: "It's ONLY a Hollywood movie, not a documentary."

If you made a film about WWII prison camps and then claimed that Japan was just misunderstood your manipulation of historical facts would be called into question.

So what? Every movie that isn't a documentary has a disclaimer at the end that says something like: "This teleplay is fictitious. Although based upon actual facts, some events and characters have been changed for dramatic purposes."

Clinton and you people are making much ado about nothing.

It's just entertainment.

Draginol

on Sep 10, 2006

I don't recall Republicans threatening to take away CBS's broadcasting license over the Ronald Reagan movie that put some pretty horrible words on his lips.

By contrast, the quibbling from Clinton fans is really about details while trying to obscure the overall reality -- Clinton had the opportunity to nail Osama Bin Laden and chose to pass on the opportunity due to fear over the political fall out. The question over whether it was Sandy Berger's decision or Madaline Albright's decision is a detail.

The whole thing strikes me as an attempt to obfuscate the underlying truth.

James

on Sep 10, 2006

Draginol is wrong, much of this movie has been debunked already by several unbiased sources and experts. The original CIA advisor on the film resigned because of what he called "Gross fabrications", CNN interviewed him last night. Seems like someone has been watching too much FoxNews. This is a poor attempt at revisionist history in a cheap last gasp to try and save the upcoming disasterous elections for the republicans.

Dr Guy

on Sep 10, 2006

Clinton and you people are making much ado about nothing.

It's just entertainment.

IN that we agree. But what is worse for the clintons, is the fuss they are making. Most would not have thought twice about it if not for their belly aching.

Rightwinger

on Sep 10, 2006

The movie blames Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright but the CIA isn't sure who exactly killed the mission only that it came from the white house.

Maybe that's what went out in Sandy Burglar's pants?

Anyway, when the Senate Minority Leader starts firing off threatening letters, co-signed by powerful memebers of the Congress and Senate, to television networks for criticizing their actions, sSomething is wrong. Add to that more threatening letters from the lawyers of an ex-president, well, things are getting a little too weird.

And Draginol is right; the outcry and debate over the Reagan movie was loud, but no threats, veiled or otherwise, were made by Repubs to the network.

The original CIA advisor on the film resigned because of what he called "Gross fabrications",

---James

From what I heard, the CIA rep who made the original claims about the killing of the mission has stuck by his story time and again.

MythicalMino

on Sep 10, 2006

was there any action to take away CBS and Dan Rathers liscense when they wrote up their little memo accusing Bush?

I don't really remember anything coming out of that, really....

Draginol

on Sep 10, 2006

James: Feel free to provide links to these "objective" debunkings. For some odd reason, I just haven't been able to find them. Incidentally, Democratic Underground does not count as an objective debunking.

Draginol

on Sep 10, 2006

James: Better get those debunkers to work on this blog which includes a full NBC report complete with uncovered footage of drones tracking Bin Laden in the late 90s.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-too-late-to-decide-to-attack-bin.html

ParaTed2k

on Sep 10, 2006

It's hilarious to watch the left whine when "their precious" gets held over the fires of Mount Doom!! After years of accusing Prs. Bush of everything from alledged cocaine use to actually helping plan the attacks on the WTC, NOW they whine like stuck little pigs.

Wah to them all, let the little book burners cry in their wallows.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!