The Path To 9/11
- Thread starter futha
- Start date
DarthSydodyas
rusting
You'd be suprised.Johnny Canuck2 said:
They made the Northern Alliance General, Massuad? into a God Like beatific character, but i,m sure the N/A were as guilty of massacres,.etc as the Jihadists.I also might have guessed it was made by a christian influenced production company as it did have a messanic air about it. Have to say i enjoyed it though: very good production values and Keitel was very good as usual. Then again the 'Bad Lieutenant' never turns in a poor performance.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I just saw the second part: it was shown in two parts on ABC.
Parts were obviously incorrect, like the FAA contacting the military immediately upon learning of the first hijacking.
Otherwise, it was a dramatization, but one that left me feeling a little bit sick to my stomach, reminiscent in a lesser way, of five years ago
Parts were obviously incorrect, like the FAA contacting the military immediately upon learning of the first hijacking.
Otherwise, it was a dramatization, but one that left me feeling a little bit sick to my stomach, reminiscent in a lesser way, of five years ago
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
There's been a huge fuss about this in the US media apparently, or at least on the leftish side - I was surprised nobody mentioned it here.
There's the issue of bias, in that it skews the issue and portrays the Clinton administration as weak and incompetent etc and the Bush administration as fine (propping up one of the talking points, that 9-11 was actually Clinton's fault). I've not seen it so I can't really say about that.
There's the further point though that it actually just makes shit up. One scene that caused particular concern was where a CIA agent calls up and says "we have bin Laden in our sights, shall we fire" and gets the phone put down on him. Now, that is just made up, it never happened, it's explicitly contradicted by the 9-11 report - and what's more it exactly mirrors a right-wing myth that goes around the internet. Which makes me very suspicious.
When you look at the background of the people concerned, and the extraordinary lengths that Disney/ABC went to to promote the film (previews were only sent out to sympathetic right-wing journalists, not even to the actual real people whose actions were fictionalised, they decided to run it without ads which is almost unheard of, they even tried to get it sent to schools as an educational resource until parent campaigns got it pulled) and consider the fact that this is a country where a biopic of Reagan got shunted off to a pay channel because of a kerfuffle that it might not show him in a very good light - and he's dead - well. A lot of people seem to consider it a big sloppy kiss by Disney/ABC to the Republican party.
There's a sample of objections raised to it here, but googling "path to 9/11" will get you more.
The whole idea of a fictionalised docudrama about real people and real events, which claims that it's okay to make up things that didn't happen in order to promote a sort of overall truth, is very dodgy in my book.
There's the issue of bias, in that it skews the issue and portrays the Clinton administration as weak and incompetent etc and the Bush administration as fine (propping up one of the talking points, that 9-11 was actually Clinton's fault). I've not seen it so I can't really say about that.
There's the further point though that it actually just makes shit up. One scene that caused particular concern was where a CIA agent calls up and says "we have bin Laden in our sights, shall we fire" and gets the phone put down on him. Now, that is just made up, it never happened, it's explicitly contradicted by the 9-11 report - and what's more it exactly mirrors a right-wing myth that goes around the internet. Which makes me very suspicious.
When you look at the background of the people concerned, and the extraordinary lengths that Disney/ABC went to to promote the film (previews were only sent out to sympathetic right-wing journalists, not even to the actual real people whose actions were fictionalised, they decided to run it without ads which is almost unheard of, they even tried to get it sent to schools as an educational resource until parent campaigns got it pulled) and consider the fact that this is a country where a biopic of Reagan got shunted off to a pay channel because of a kerfuffle that it might not show him in a very good light - and he's dead - well. A lot of people seem to consider it a big sloppy kiss by Disney/ABC to the Republican party.
There's a sample of objections raised to it here, but googling "path to 9/11" will get you more.
The whole idea of a fictionalised docudrama about real people and real events, which claims that it's okay to make up things that didn't happen in order to promote a sort of overall truth, is very dodgy in my book.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
The part I saw portrayed both administrations and the bureaucracy as incompetent.
As for shooting bin laden, apparently they had him in the sights of a predator, but it was unarmed.
What did happen, from a documentary I saw, is that during the events, someone from the military asked the honchos at the FAA about authorization to shoot down planes. The guy on the phone at the FAA said: "Uh, everybody just walked out of the room."
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
FridgeMagnet said:
I disagree. Condi Rice comes across as a semi-sane control freak, Cheney as a wooden carving, and the CIA director as a total incompetent.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Like I said, I didn't watch it, so I can't really say about the overall impression.
The factual inaccuracies, though, are worrying (apparently some chunks got pulled after complaints by the people being portrayed, but not all of them) and the whole idea of a "docudrama" which explicitly fictionalises things, I don't like, particularly given the context here. And particularly when it involves making stuff up about people who are still around!
The factual inaccuracies, though, are worrying (apparently some chunks got pulled after complaints by the people being portrayed, but not all of them) and the whole idea of a "docudrama" which explicitly fictionalises things, I don't like, particularly given the context here. And particularly when it involves making stuff up about people who are still around!
This fantasy left out many important questions,
Such as:
Why weren't the protocols in place to deal with this emergency, or why weren't they adhered to?
Why did George Bush sit blinking in a classroom for seven minutes after being told his country was under attack?
Why did the administration have to be pulled kicking and screaming to an official investigation?
Why did they only allocate $3 million dollars for the 9-11 Commission's initial budget? (Didn't seem to be a problem to spend $100 million to investigate a blowjob a few years previously)
Why couldn't Bush and Cheney testify seperately, in public, to the 9-11 Commission?
Such as:
Why weren't the protocols in place to deal with this emergency, or why weren't they adhered to?
Why did George Bush sit blinking in a classroom for seven minutes after being told his country was under attack?
Why did the administration have to be pulled kicking and screaming to an official investigation?
Why did they only allocate $3 million dollars for the 9-11 Commission's initial budget? (Didn't seem to be a problem to spend $100 million to investigate a blowjob a few years previously)
Why couldn't Bush and Cheney testify seperately, in public, to the 9-11 Commission?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
That bit with the priest praying made me groan...it did have some interesting bits but much like United 93 felt a little pointless in the end (I'd like more actual criticism of Bush's adminstration too).
Oh yeah and I just knew they were going to get whathername from 24 and The Larry Sanders Show to play Condi!
Oh yeah and I just knew they were going to get whathername from 24 and The Larry Sanders Show to play Condi!
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Does his blinking somehow make it worse?rhod said:
Or maybe you got your words muddled up, and what you meant to say was
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Buddy Bradley said:Does his blinking somehow make it worse?
The dumb fuck should have got right up, upon hearing the news, made his excuses and left to take command of the situation. But the prick just sat there.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Well yes, but to have the audacity to blink while he does it - words fail me... 
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Kid_Eternity said:
It's because he's incompetent.
Kid_Eternity said:
I haven't much good to say about GW, and I'm not about do it now, but don't you think his advisors warned him against upsetting a class room of children?
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Lock&Light said:
That's not it. He sat there like a dummy because he didn't know what to do.
He could have said something like: 'Kids, it's been great visiting here with you, but being the president means I have to be there to deal with things when they come up. According to my advisor, they need me back in Washington right now, so I'll have to say goodbye, and thanks again for this enjoyable day.'
Or words to that effect...
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I don't know if it was later discounted, but on the day itself the reports spoke about journalists who asked GW, while he was sitting with the children, if he knew about the attacks in NY, to be answered with a nod and the words, "I'll make a statement about that shortly."
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Lock&Light said:
From the clips I've seen, it didn't appear that journalists had access to go up to the front of the class and whisper questions to the prez while he was sitting there.
I just saved myself 3 hours and 40 minutes by simply asking here...! God bless Urban...editor said:
I have no further comment to make on a fillum I didn't see...
Leigh is picking up on the Max Blumenthal piece but he's done more work:
I'm sure they know the relative degrees of control exercised by director and screenwriter: anyone who does and claims the director's "influence in the film was limited" is lying.
Well, the BBC needs its arse kicked then, for not doing basic research on what it is spending my license fee on.
At the very least they should have shown a contrasting view of the events surrounding 9-11 straight afterwards.
"9/11
ress for Truth", for instance.
At the very least they should have shown a contrasting view of the events surrounding 9-11 straight afterwards.
"9/11
ress for Truth", for instance.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Looks like the "just making shit up" thing has gotten them into more trouble:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/09/crazy-days-at-abc-disney.html
Apathy said:
Is that because you just can't be arsed?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Good to see there's some shit being flung at the makers...
