« Heh... | Main | Lies, Damned Lies, And The Media Fog Machine »

August 30, 2006

The Path to 9/11

Little Miss Attila has the scoop on what sounds like the first honest portrayal on 9/11 to hit the airwaves. Check out her site to find out when it will air.

A little teaser from her link:

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.

Interested? You should be. Click the link. Tell a friend. Spread the word. Support this.

Posted by Cassandra at August 30, 2006 05:23 PM

Comments

On ABC?!

I'll believe it if/when I see it, but if it is as advertised, it would reflect a serious paradigm shift...

Posted by: camojack at August 30, 2006 09:51 PM

Big thanks for the tip. Definitely going to watch it! BTW, agree with camojack. May be more than a paradigm shift, but doubt it!

Posted by: CoREv at August 31, 2006 06:13 AM

I might have to trot my satellite account out of mothballs. I really really really hate when that happens. My son was foaming at the mouth after we read the review and wanting to cause Clinton pain.

It was a teaching moment I couldn't let pass by.
I showed him a picture of Hillary, and responded,
"That woman is his wife." He nearly gouged his eyes out and agreed that marriage to her was punishment enough.

Posted by: Cricket at August 31, 2006 08:47 AM

I find it interesting that a movie of this magnitude spoken with a "voice" that Hollywood has long forgotten is being shown on "free" TV. However, I also find it interesting in that ABC has chosen to air the mini-series on the opening weekend of the NFL regular season with all of it's new venues -- namely that ABC no longer carries Monday Night Football. I wonder who the schedule guru was on that one? Or is it just me who sees this as a little more than coincidental?

Posted by: Sly2017 at August 31, 2006 12:38 PM

It's not the decision to run the movie, but the timing? Is that what you mean, Sly2017?

Posted by: man riding unicycle naked at September 3, 2006 11:01 AM

Man, you people are really in villainous company.

You know that the movie is a pack of lies, even debunked now by Roger Cressey, who was one of the people Bushie had on the job.

No US soldier or mercenary ever had Bin Laden in his crooshairs. It was George Tenet, not Sandy Berger who called off the strike on Bin Laden.

Meanwhile, there's not one mention of My Pet Goat in the entire movie.

Just because it's on TV doesn't make it true. You guys should know that. You watch enough Fox News.

Posted by: Joe Bua at September 6, 2006 12:54 PM

I think they cut the scene where the Shrub was reading a book to a goat while Dick Cheney steered that plane into the WTC.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 6, 2006 12:59 PM

REMEMBER - it's just TV!!! It is not labeled a documentary, nor for that matter I hear no one representing it as any kind of FACT, just someones representation of the 9/11 report, which of course was someone elses representation......

Its just TV!! The right wingers will label it their way as will the left. So far the TV show is sounding like it leans RIGHT - but I will watch it, while I remember that just like 24 - it's just TV!

Posted by: Greg at September 6, 2006 09:46 PM

Hence the last comment.

People are just excited because we so rarely see anything that even vaguely skews right....errr...reich. Just to have a semblance of balance would be refreshing for once. I don't think anyone around here is unsophisticated enough to assume what they see on TV is "the truth". I don't think we're going to have the truth on 9/11 for a very long time, if ever.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 6, 2006 10:01 PM

Besides, just watching the NY Times go high and to the Left is entertaining enough. The cries for censorship before this even airs are downright hilarious. I'm just watching and taking notes for the next time the shoe is on the other foot :D

Posted by: Cassandra at September 6, 2006 10:03 PM

I was just wondering (out loud, again, it seems) whether or not the "geniuses" at ABC are betting that more people are going to be watching football instead, thereby giving them the appearance of a balanced and non-partisan agenda without actually having to commit to such a "bourgeois" idea. Like I say, though, it could just be me. ;-)

Posted by: Sly2017 at September 7, 2006 11:54 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)