"The Path to 9/11"

[Bayou Bum]

I'm curious to hear what people think about ABC's “The Path to 9/11” docudrama and whether ABC should make changes to appease the Clinton administration. Will it matter to the general public that it is a docudrama or will it be viewed by the viewer as fact since it is on ABC? Should any political party have the power to pressure the media on what it can/should/will show? Or, should we require all historical programs to be unbiased and produced by Michael Moore?

Just thoughts for discussion.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...11movie08.html

[Philistine]

I'm curious to hear what people think about ABC's “The Path to 9/11” docudrama and whether ABC should make changes to appease the Clinton administration.

Kind of hard to say, not having seen the film. But apparently, according to the Article, ABC is making "minor changes."

To my mind, taking out parts that cast someone in a bad light if there is no evidence that the incident actually took place as depicted is probably a good thing. Both from a historical standpoint and a legal one.

Will it matter to the general public that it is a docudrama or will it be viewed by the viewer as fact since it is on ABC?

I think docudramas of any event that has happened in the recent past are going to be looked at by most people as being more or less accurate. Generally, most people will believe that if something didn't really happen, it wouldn't have been made up out of whole cloth.

Should any political party have the power to pressure the media on what it can/should/will show? Or, should we require all historical programs to be unbiased and produced by Michael Moore?

Maybe you should ask CBS....

--Philistine

[noodle]

http://openlettertoabc.blogspot.com/

[Five Rings]

Maybe my memory is failing me . . . but didn't Clinton authorize cruise missle attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan to target AQ and wasn't there a public outcry about this that chilled further attacks on OBL? Its easy in hindsight to say "we should have . . . " (I should have bought Microsoft at $25 a share).

On a related note, I think that docudramas are lethal to our ability to properly analyze the past - I have found myself having to correct certain "truths" that I have believed in which I subsequently realized came from movies and fictitious works. One prime example are depictions of Roman soldiers in recreations on TV - the uniforms, tatics, and weapons typically reflect those of the late Republican or early Empire eras, regardless of the actual historical setting of the program. OTOH, they are more entertaining . . .

[Five Rings]

Or, should we require all historical programs to be unbiased and produced by Michael Moore?

BTW, I am fairly liberal in my leanings (OK, I am a leftie - and I don't mean fencing either), but I found Farenheit 9-11 manipulative and insulting to my intelligence. So, I would not assume that all liberals buy the Michael Moore interpretation of history.

It would be hard to expect the general audience to be able, once they get engrossed in a program, to mentally challenge themselves and say "I wonder if what was depicted is true? Let me go do some research."

[Inquartata]

Maybe you should ask CBS....

--Philistine

Tu quoque.

Actually, I was going to mention that one myself. What's sauce for the goose is gsauce for the gander.

[umbrella]

The Road to 911 wasnt' paved in good intentions.....


But intentions aside, it was 5 years ago, it must be time to tidy upput some final touches on this thing, come to more agreements,

but, it becomes more diffiicult as we read about military misbehaviorit makes it almost impossible to mend the fences. My take on this, is that it will take more time to clear up all the misunderstandings, and we have to make it clear to military that if they engage in behaviors against intermational females, they're headed for jail. it only prolongs the war. That's what all wars are essentially about, protecting life, by a pre-emptive strike or retaliation. I have to admit, I take the side of the Iran's President.

[Feltan]

The docu-drams didn't seem to stretch things too far. I am sure some dialog between officials, that we will never know about anyway, was made up -- but I didn't see any obvious swipes at either party. The protests beforehand by Clinton officials seems to have been a bit overblown -- makes me wonder what they thought was all that objectionable to begin with.

Regards,
Feltan

[Inquartata]

I didn't watch the program ( didn't watch the Reagan movie, either ), but my understanding of it was that prior to "editing" it depicted Clinton as being personally responsible for not doing anything about Bin Laden---almost to the exclusion of all others. He felt that this was untrue.

[scrapinpeg]

In today's WSJ:

My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism.

BY CYRUS NOWRASTEH
Monday, September 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

"The Path to 9/11" was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack. Past is prologue, and 9/11 is merely another step in an escalating Islamic fundamentalist reign of terror. By dramatizing the step-by-step increase in attacks on America--all of which, in fact, occurred--we are better able to see the pattern and anticipate the future. That was the point of the series, its only intention. Call it the canary in the coal mine. Call it John O'Neill in the FBI.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11."

[Epee_Pox]

The New York City police department recently published an outstanding report on how -- and why -- western homegrown terrorist cells develop. Shows a clear pattern of behaviors that leads to acts (or attempts) of mass violence. Flies in the face of a lot of myths that are cherished by both sides of the debate. Not at all a political document, just trying to be as practical and factual as possible, since they can't afford to be distracted by conjecture and politics.

It's long, but an excellent read. You can see it here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/dcp...n_the_West.pdf

[Have At You]

We're too diverse and need to come together in agreement on some basic concepts.

While we're in the land of wishful thinking, I'd love to see a peace protest where they were demanding that the terrorists stop THEIR violence, too.

[mrbiggs]

While we're in the land of wishful thinking, I'd love to see a peace protest where they were demanding that the terrorists stop THEIR violence, too.

Are you serious?

That's like saying "while you are pointing out the mistakes of the Reagan administration, you completely failed to condemn the holocaust!"

The peace protesters know that the terrorists are committed to violence and that 200 Americans waving signs won't affect them. (It probably won't affect our government, either, but there's at least a chance there.)

[Have At You]

Are you serious?

That's like saying "while you are pointing out the mistakes of the Reagan administration, you completely failed to condemn the holocaust!"

The peace protesters know that the terrorists are committed to violence and that 200 Americans waving signs won't affect them. (It probably won't affect our government, either, but there's at least a chance there.)

Of course I'm serious. I don't see why people who are opposed to violence should be silent when it comes to those who deliberately kill innocent people and children to extort policy changes from a terrorized populace. Especially when those who remain silent shriek loudly when the good guys step in to protect the innocents.

Peace protestors just make life easier for those who would kill them, given a chance. At best, they are a propaganda bonanza for the bad guys. At worst, they undermine the very peace they espouse. And by advocating the defeat of those who defend them, and the victory of those who would kill them, they make it hard to take them seriously.

I have a problem with that. Your analogy to Reagan and the holocaust is inapt. Someone demanding peace should demand peace, rather than demanding appeasement and inaction in the face of actual violence. It is either ignorance or hypocrisy to do otherwise.

[keith]

snips

I doubt anyones actions pass your 'equal condemnation test'.

This of course doesn't make you test invalid, just silly - or actually I would go with intellectually egotistical.

Just out of curiosity where do you stand on people protesting Darfur? Are they providing succour to Al Queda by wasting their energies on these little things.....

[Slim]

The peace protesters know that the terrorists are committed to violence and that 200 Americans waving signs won't affect them. (It probably won't affect our government, either, but there's at least a chance there.)

Then why do they do it? Because it makes them feel soooo gooood about themselves.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Kind of like arch conservative bloggers ranting about how the left is selling out our boys overseas, or born-agains invading chat rooms telling people that they will burn in hell if they don't take Jesus as their personal savior.

I'm sure they get a warm fuzzy from it as well.

[Slim]

Kind of like arch conservative bloggers ranting about how the left is selling out our boys overseas,

No, this in fact is true. They are being used. The left is banking on a total failure in Iraq. (Gen. Betrayus...c'mon)

or born-agains invading chat rooms telling people that they will burn in hell if they don't take Jesus as their personal savior.

I'm sure they get a warm fuzzy from it as well.

Yes, this one is much closer to the point.

[mrbiggs]

Then why do they do it? Because it makes them feel soooo gooood about themselves.

Well, I can't speak for them because I'm not among them, but I think that maybe they're holding on to the diminishing idea that democracy will triumph and that the government will start to make changes, at least, in a war that the majority of Americans disapprove of.

I personally think that we're well past the point of large scale disapproval as a method to change the administration's methodology, but I respect that they're putting in the time and effort.

[mrbiggs]

Of course I'm serious. I don't see why people who are opposed to violence should be silent when it comes to those who deliberately kill innocent people and children to extort policy changes from a terrorized populace. Especially when those who remain silent shriek loudly when the good guys step in to protect the innocents.

Peace protestors just make life easier for those who would kill them, given a chance. At best, they are a propaganda bonanza for the bad guys. At worst, they undermine the very peace they espouse. And by advocating the defeat of those who defend them, and the victory of those who would kill them, they make it hard to take them seriously.

I have a problem with that. Your analogy to Reagan and the holocaust is inapt. Someone demanding peace should demand peace, rather than demanding appeasement and inaction in the face of actual violence. It is either ignorance or hypocrisy to do otherwise.

If you're serious then you're being silly. The peace protesters, I assume, favor peace all around. The nice thing about the country we live in is that it's a democracy. Therefore, their idea that peace should prevail is actually heard in our government. This is not the case in most terrorist organizations, so why should they protest them? There'd be no point to that at all; they'd be wasting their time.


I've never seen a peace protest advocating victory for the terrorists. It's easy to use words that make people feel strongly about an issue, by saying that peace protesters are undermining our troops, or supporting the terrorists, or any other kind of garbage. They're not. They simply don't want war.

For example, most peace protesters I've talked to are against the Iraq war, but not Afghanistan. I'm not claiming this as a statistic, just a personal experience. Why is this? Well, one of them actually attacked us, and the peace protesters, although they are very much for peace, are willing to sacrifice some of their values if they think it will improve the world as a whole. Iraq, on the other hand, never attacked us, and as it turns out, never had the capacity to either. These protesters aren't saying that the terrorists should win, they're saying that we shouldn't continue a war based on false pretenses, especially with the condition Iraq is in right now.

It's a bit odd that I'm arguing from their perspective because I take a much more moderate approach than most people who go to peace rallies, but if you're going to misinterpret their message to such an extent I feel I should at least attempt to explain where they're coming from.