In the continuing affair between fiction and propaganda, ABC’s 9/11 slander piece just simply makes a scene up. It follows in the conservative path of just throwing crap against the wall and hoping the MSM is dumb enough to just let it stick. I understand ABC makes a healthy profit off of pushing out right-wing noise like Sean Hannity, but they usually don’t blatantly shill like that. Is anyone aware of any broadcast-related legislation swimming around in congress that would provide motive for this latest round of attack.
Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.
The moment is clearly intended to encapsulate the notion of American inattentiveness to the terror threat in the 1990s — a point driven home when the camera pans back to show Berger surrounded by a supporting cast of fellow Clinton administration nervous Nellies, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.
So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.
Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”
Related
Gun Nuts Redux
Did You Hear The Rumor About Mickey Kaus Blowing Goats?
It’s Things Like This Why I Love The Eff Out Of Maryland, My Home State
What projection this film has: the exact same scenario happened in 2001 for real- when bin Laden was trapped but the US outsourced the job to the Northern Alliance and bin Laden got away. For the third time in Bush’s presidency, remembering the two times the Taliban offered up bin Laden on a silver platter and the president refused.
Unlike this “film”, my assertions actually were in the 9/11 commission report.
I have to admit that I am enjoying this. After years of watching liberals howl with laughter and brush off complaints from conservatives about treatment of them television and movies, it is with a lot of glee that I watch you guys get all worked up over this.
Unlike Michael Moore movies that are packed with lies (which you guys don’t seem to be bothered with), and presented as factual documentaries, this is a DRAMA. Many times in films based on true events, there are scenes that are composites. Lots of little actions compacted into one scene. Based upon the reaction of Ben Veniste, a Democratic suck-up, and Stolen Documents Berger, I am prone to believe that something like this did take place, just not in such dramatic fashion.
Amazing. This kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME in movies based on true events, but now your panties are in a bunch over it.
Did that research include the documents Berger stole from the National Archives?
“Unlike Michael Moore movies that are packed with lies”
Name one lie in Fahrenheit 9/11.
I just found out that this is going to be on the BBC on 9/11 itself. Propaganda spreads.
Name one lie in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Easy. Why Moore suggests the members of bin Laden’s family were able to fly out of the country when all other air traffic was grounded.
Now proceed to parse, obfuscate and apologize.
To reiterate, if the rightards could get CBS to pull its Reagan biopic because it didn’t fellate St. Ron sufficiently, we can get this piece of garbage pulled too.
“Why Moore suggests the members of bin Laden’s family were able to fly out of the country when all other air traffic was grounded.”
Except the film doesn’t say that.
“The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.”
“At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.”
http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=17
Not a real good try crazy jay, but I’m sure you’ll try again.
Sure Factcheck. He preceeds that little snipped with the following:
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded… [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden’s family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Since he makes a major point of telling people that flights were grounded, how are viewers supposed to know the description does not include the Saudi flights?
Of course, there is the fake newspaper page. I’m not going to go tit for tat over this. Moore’s films are filled with distortions, bogus editing, and staged scenes. Deal with it.
but no lies. As you admit. The “distortions” are in your tiny little brain.
On the other hand, there are scences in the “Path to 9/11″ movie which are pure fiction.
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded… [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
All true. Remember that he makes a point to say “in the days after September 13, the bin Ladens are allowed to fly outside of the country”. If he was trying to decieve, why would he say “in the days after September 13?”
Of course, you people claim that the Republicans never try to connect 9/11 with Iraq, so I think you’re being a bit inconsistent here. Why the hypocracy?
but no lies. As you admit. The “distortions” are in your tiny little brain.
Oh brother. Lies. Distortions. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Spare me.
On the other hand, there are scences in the “Path to 9/11″ movie which are pure fiction.
Wow. Fiction in a fictionalized account of true events. Will wonders never cease?
Amazing. What a tool you are.
Yeah, I’m a tool. Standard factcheck. You resort to name calling and ad hominemn when you cannot present a coherent argument.
You cannot distinguish the difference between a mini-series drama and the obligation documentary filmmaker has to his audience when presenting his work.
It is common-place for filmmakers to make events more dramatic and even make some stuff up in a movie, even if that movie was based on true events. The underlying story is what matters. The movie ‘Shattered Glass’ featured a character named Caitlin Avey. Such a person never existed. Did the movie lose all credibility because she was a completely fictional character?
On the other hand, in a documentary, the filmmaker is supposed to present the facts and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions. You don’t make shit up or present things that attempt to make certain events appear sinister when they’re routine. You fell for it with the bin Laden example. What is the significance of telling everybody that the bin Ladens “were allowed to leave the country” when it was at a time when ANYBODY could leave the country?
The problem isnt that we have a politically slanted fictional drama that intends to portray 9/11 as being predominantly Clintons fault, the problem is that we have a politically slanted fictional drama that intends to portray 9/11 as being predominantly Clintons fault which is being treated as fact. The author of the film and all the conservative media outlets who have recieved advance copies (copies which “liberal” outlets havent recieved) are talking about it like it sheds new light on the event, which it might if major parts of it werent just made up, and you didnt have the people like Berger and the democratic head of the 911 report saying that this crap didnt happen. Limbaugh isnt calling this “A marvelous little fiction that I wish happened this way”, he’s calling it the damn truth. And theyre planning to release it to schools with one of those Fact-Packet things so all the kids know that the whole thing happened just like that, the scene where they had Bin Laden cornered and were told to stand down, the scene where Clinton is sucking osama’s cock while he fucks a dog, the whole damn thing. That is what the problem is.
And crazy jay knows this he is just playing games because he likes the message. Good post, you said pretty much what I was going to say.
The author of the film and all the conservative media outlets who have recieved advance copies (copies which “liberal” outlets havent recieved)
Says who?
and you didnt have the people like Berger and the democratic head of the 911 report saying that this crap didnt happen.
Tom Kean says it was a composite of events compacted into one and said it is reasonably accurate. I have no doubt that Ben Veniste as a Democratic hack is going to object, and that Berger is going to cover his ass. Just because they deny it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
How can a movie called “The Path To 9/11″ not include events and problems that took place during the Clinton administration? The man was President for EIGHT YEARS. Bush was President for SEVEN MONTHS. Are you seriously so delusional that you think the that groundwork and planning for the 9/11 attacks all took place after Bush was sworn into office?
Besides, from everything I have read, this notion that the 9/11 attacks are placed squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton administration in the film is bogus. There is a bunch of criticism directed at the Bush administration, Condoleeza Rice in particular. Here’s the real issue: The Clinton administration doesn’t want to accept ANY culpability in the events leading up to that fateful day. They, like all other Democrats and liberals want everybody to believe that the entire thing was 100% Bush’s fault.
I am just amazed that people can draw conclusions about a film THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN.
“I am just amazed that people can draw conclusions about a film THEY HAVEN’T EVEN SEEN.”
Funny, they didn’t seem to think they needed to see F9/11 to judge it. Oh well!
Sad that conservatives like Jay think it’s okay to blatantly lie. Given that you have sucking chest wounds where your integrity and honor used to be, is it any wonder that the conservative movement’s credibility’s so diminished?
A little advice, Jay: if you want to convince people of the rightness of your position, it will help if you abide by the basic rules of civilized discourse; in this instance, by taking a stand against lying.
Also Dem-Hacks like counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke, and one of Bush’s own top Counterterrorism officials Roger Cressy have called it fiction too. Its not just that people are denying this crap either, dingus, its that the objective factual record of the events denies it.
Clinton was in office for only one month when he was blamed for the first WTC bombing attack, and yet he caught all kinds of hell. Therefore, shut up.
But yeah though, the conservative filmmaker is going to go out of his way to make Bush look as bad as he’s been trained to make Clinton look, right… okay, heres a thing then. You remember that August 6 PDB? the one that says Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US, Possibly With Planes Against Large Buildings In, Most Likely, New York, So Please Do Something About This If You Can? You know, the one Bush took no action at all on? (Not an issue of if he could have prevented it here, an issue of he didnt do anything to try) Yeah, thats not really in the movie. Arguably an important thing to downplay like that, and almost indicative on an agenda to redirect blame. Apparently theres a scene with Rice reading it, and she too doesnt do anything about it.
Its not about Clinton not taking responsibility for what is his responsibility, its about blaming him for lies about shit that didnt happen, and getting people to say “man that clinton, you know they actually had the troops on the ground surrounding Bin Laden and he said they should split? what a tool!” when nothing like that ever happened.
Here’s the big difference, Jay.
Don’t like Michael Moore’s movies? That’s your privilege. He slaps his name and porky mug right at the top of the ads. You and three-quarters of the right wing blogosphere can bay like hounds as you dissect every word for indications of heresey. People know what they’re getting.
Same goes for Oliver Stone.
With the 9-11 job, we’re talking about ABC. One of the major outlets for reliable news. They have to live up to a higher standard than openly partisan filmmakers.
You keep harping on the idea that this is a drama. You really don’t think the public at large is going to take this as fact? How many more people will watch this (billed as “based on the 9-11 commission report”) than will actually read the report?
Put the shoe on the other foot, Jay. How would you feel about a “drama” that shows a young George Bush snorting a few lines of cocaine? Or one that portrayed President George Bush as saying, “Aw, those folks down in New Orleans won’t vote for me. Screw ‘em!”
That’s the degree of dishonesty at play in this invented scene.
Jay doesn’t care because it tells him the truth he wants to hear. It’s all about his “team”.
and he doesn’t care that the right has it’s own Leni Riefenstahl. It’s all about Clinton-hate.
Those pesky nuances again.
Don’t like Michael Moore’s movies? That’s your privilege. He slaps his name and porky mug right at the top of the ads. You and three-quarters of the right wing blogosphere can bay like hounds as you dissect every word for indications of heresey. People know what they’re getting.
Quaker, that is nonsense and you know it. We seem to forget that most people in the public realm do not follow politics as closely as we do. Contrary to what you may think, there are probably more people who don’t know who Michael Moore is than do. Yet, if they go to see his movie, or they watch it on Showtime or another cable station, they are watching was is being presented as a documentary. You’re not supposed to make things up in documentaries. He does.
Same goes for Oliver Stone.
Oliver Stone doesn’t create documentaries. ‘JFK’ was an excellent movie, but riddled with inaccuracies and events made entirely made up. The fact that people accepted it as fact is their problem.
You keep harping on the idea that this is a drama. You really don’t think the public at large is going to take this as fact? How many more people will watch this (billed as “based on the 9-11 commission report”) than will actually read the report?
Ah, and there we have it. It’s wrong because there are going to be too many lazy people out there who will just accept what they see in a mini-series as stone cold fact and for that it should be pulled off the air?
That’s the degree of dishonesty at play in this invented scene.
Once again I remind you that Tom Kean said this was a composite scene. This is a technique often used by filmmakers to add dramatic effect to a film.
Sorry, but you all sound like the people who went nuts trying to get ‘The Da Vinci Code’ banned from theaters. I’m sure you were rolling your eyes at their complaints.
Actually Stimpy, I mean Jay, it’s wrong because it’s being PROMOTED as fact, not just that people will accept it as such. As has been stated again and again and again. But somehow you never seem to catch on. Why would that be, I wonder.
Actually Stimpy, I mean Jay, it’s wrong because it’s being PROMOTED as fact, not just that people will accept it as such.
Exactly how is it being promoted as fact? Please direct me to the ABC promos that are saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact!”
Quaker may have a point. Since “more Americans get their news from ABC than from any other source”, it would explain polls results which show Americans believe that:
* a giant hurricane hit Florida last year.
* the largest plane crash in Australian history occured in the South Pacific 2 years ago.
* George W. Bush is, in fact, not the President.
With the 9-11 job, we’re talking about ABC. One of the major outlets for reliable news.
It’s not a news story. It’s a movie.
Ah, and there we have it. It’s wrong because there are going to be too many lazy people out there who will just accept what they see in a mini-series as stone cold fact and for that it should be pulled off the air?
Which way will you have it, Jay?
In the very same post, you made the statement, “You’re not supposed to make things up in documentaries.”
But if ABC airs a “drama” that portrays real events mixed with outright fiction, that’s OK?
The “lie” you cited from Moore’s F911 relies on a very careful wording of a literally factual statement. The scene in the ABC “drama” is entirely invented.
You seem to have a problem with distortion only when it makes George Bush look bad.
Exactly how is it being promoted as fact? Please direct me to the ABC promos that are saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact!”
It’s being promoted as “based on the 9-11 commission report.”
And that’s really funny, Farris.
Did any of those shows pretend to be “based” on a congressional report? Did any of them portray the actions of actual government officials? Did any of those shows reflect the events, places, and times of real events?
Which way will you have it, Jay?
In the very same post, you made the statement, “You’re not supposed to make things up in documentaries.”
But if ABC airs a “drama” that portrays real events mixed with outright fiction, that’s OK?
First of all, you’re comparing apples and oranages. Documentaries and dramatic films are not the same thing and cannot be held to the same standards.
Second of all, it is a common practice for writers and filmmakers to make up composite characters, make up composite events that are taken from little bits and pieces of other small events when it comes to putting a film together that is based on real life events.
The “lie” you cited from Moore’s F911 relies on a very careful wording of a literally factual statement. The scene in the ABC “drama” is entirely invented.
Apples and oranges again.
You seem to have a problem with distortion only when it makes George Bush look bad.
No Quaker, that is not the problem. You cannot compare an ABC mini-series to that of a documentary which is a work that is based on actual event, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements. Moore’s films contain fictional elements (bogus assertions, fake newspaper headlines, etc).
It’s being promoted as “based on the 9-11 commission report.”
Actually, they are saying:
ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
I can only assume that you agree that ‘The Da Vinci Code’ should have been banned. I can only assume that you think any movie that purports to be based on actual events and yet makes up stuff out of whole cloth should be stripped from Blockbuster shelves across the country.
Let’s rid the world of ‘JFK’, ‘Nixon’, ‘The Untouchables’, ‘All The Presidents Men’, etc. After all, these are all movies based on true events and people and yet all of them have scenes that were totally fabricated.
“Exactly how is it being promoted as fact? Please direct me to the ABC promos that are saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact!”"
OK. Here:
On September 11, 2001 the world stood still as terrorists used four planes as lethal weapons against innocent Americans. The 9/11 Commission was formed to determine how such an attack could happen, and its report documents the trail from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to the tragedy of that autumn morning. The bipartisan commission effort created a comprehensive record of events and provides valuable insight into what must be done to protect the nation in the future.
ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
[snipped a long list of actors and roles]
The miniseries will take viewers behind closed doors at the CIA, the FBI and the White House and into the world of Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Sandy Berger and CIA Director Richard Tenet, among others. Viewers will follow the international manhunt for elusive bomber Ramzi Yousef (Nabil Elouahabi, “Eastenders”) and meet several key players in the 9/11 saga, including: John O’Neill, the career FBI agent who spent years zealously chasing bin Laden; then-ABC newsman John Miller (portrayed by Barclay Hope, “Stargate SG-1″) who interviewed bin Laden; Emad Salem and other key Muslim informants who aided the U.S.; and Ahmed Shah Massoud, commander of the Northern Alliance, a crucial American ally and the person bin Laden feared most.
The 9/11 Commission Report instantly became a national bestseller when it was published in July 2004. Writer Cyrus Nowrasteh (”The Day Reagan Was Shot”) uses this historic document as the basis for a powerful story with action as gripping and far reaching as the source material itself. Shot in Toronto, Morocco, New York and Washington, DC, actors portray the famous and infamous, along with the formerly anonymous and often heroic people thrust onto history’s stage.
Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day — to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period.
Former ABC News anchor John Miller, now the FBI’s Assistant Director of Public Affairs, was also a consultant on the project. His book, The Cell, co-authored with Michael Stone, was optioned by ABC for use in the teleplay. In addition, The Relentless Pursuit by Samuel Katz was also optioned.
“The Path to 9/11″ is executive-produced by Marc Platt (”Empire Falls”). The producers are Hans Proppe (”Anne Frank”) and Cyrus Nowrasteh (also the writer). Governor Thomas H. Kean (Chairman, The 9/11 Commission) is senior consultant. The director is David L. Cunningham. The miniseries is a production of UHP Productions, Ltd., and is distributed by Touchstone Television.
Somebody help me out here, aren’t Jay and Farris the ones insisting that Bush never “lied” about secret CIA prisons, only to insist here that lies, distortions, etc. are all the same thing here? Where’s Dugger?
Doesn’t it seem like you might be representing a “drama” as “fact” when you send 100,000 copies to schools and conservative bloggers? What about ABC’s constant references to the 9-11 commision as the source for the movie? Obviously they can’t say it’s a documentary since they would expose themselves to a lot of legal challenges. This seems like an attempt to have their cake and eat it too by tossing Bush an election season present while dodging any legal entanglements.
I also love the fact that Jay can’t wrap his head around the difference between a theatrically distributed film and one broadcast over the public airwaves by a major network.
Moore!
Liberal!
Da Vinci! (okay, maybe not that one)
Somebody help me out here, aren’t Jay and Farris the ones insisting that Bush never “lied” about secret CIA prisons, only to insist here that lies, distortions, etc. are all the same thing here? Where’s Dugger?
Huh?
Doesn’t it seem like you might be representing a “drama” as “fact” when you send 100,000 copies to schools and conservative bloggers?
Ok, 100,000 copies of the movie were not sent to schools. ABC sent 100,000 LETTERS from Tom Kean to high school educators to encourage their students to watch the movie.
What about ABC’s constant references to the 9-11 commision as the source for the movie?
So?
This seems like an attempt to have their cake and eat it too by tossing Bush an election season present while dodging any legal entanglements.
Here we go. A built in excuse if Democrats implode and don’t take over Congress in November.
I also love the fact that Jay can’t wrap his head around the difference between a theatrically distributed film and one broadcast over the public airwaves by a major network.
Right. Movies that are theatrically distributed never make their way to the networks.
In a nutshell:
“bin Laden’s family was allowed to fly in the days after September 13…” is a distortion.
Depicting an imaginary event in a “dramatization of the events in the 9-11 Commission Report”? Not a distortion.
Do I have that right, Jay?
Quaker:
Mini-series
Documentary
–
Apple
Orange
Get it now? Stop comparing documentaries to movies. I won’t address the issue anymore because you’re using a bogus comparison. There are much different standards for each of those types of films.
The ABC promotion is posted above at your request.
Please point to the words that indicate some people or events may be fictionalized.
Please point to the words that indicate some people or events may be fictionalized.
They don’t have to Quaker. Chances are, you will see something at the end of the film, in the credits - as is the case with almost all movies that are based on factual events.
I am sure you saw ‘All The Presidents Men’ did you not? The dramatic license taken with that movie can take up an entire page of the Washington Post if they were all listed. Are you going tell people not to watch it? Are you going to tell TCM and other television stations not to air it?
Are you going to tell me that ABC’s promotion isn’t at odds with adding made up events to their narrative?
“They don’t have to Quaker. Chances are, you will see something at the end of the film, in the credits”
And I call goalposts.
Earlier, you said “Show me the promotion…” Now the disclaimer in the credits overrides the promotion.
I am sure you saw ‘All The Presidents Men’ did you not? The dramatic license taken with that movie can take up an entire page of the Washington Post if they were all listed.
What actions by government officials portrayed in the movie were entirely made up?
Movie
+
Documentary
=
Drama-documentary
You might have heard of the concept.
Let’s cut the promotion down to just one key paragraph:
“Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day — to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period.”
Now how can we “journey through the events that presaged that fateful day” if this is just a “drama”? How are we to “understand what went right and wrong” if some of the events are made up?
How are we to “learn from this crucial eight year period” if some of the events never happened?
And I call goalposts.
Earlier, you said “Show me the promotion…” Now the disclaimer in the credits overrides the promotion.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I asked where the movie was being promoted as fact. Your copying and pasting of ABC’s blurb did not of that. Read carefully what it says:
ABC will present “The Path to 9/11,” a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption.
Nowhere there does it say that everything that happens in the movie is 100% fact. Note the term “other sources.”
What actions by government officials portrayed in the movie were entirely made up?
Man, what a lame fucking dodge that was. Forget ‘All The Presidents Men.’ Go with ‘JFK.’ In that movie, we’re presented with a narrative that officials at the highest levels of government, including LBJ were involved in JFK’s assasination.
Banned?
How in God’s good Earth does the term “and other sources” negate the fact that ABC are presenting it as being based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and therefore to be considered as broadly facutal in its conclusions?
At least over here they’re promoting it as “loosely based”. Why the BBC are showing it at all I don’t know.
How in God’s good Earth does the term “and other sources” negate the fact that ABC are presenting it as being based on the 9/11 Commission Report, and therefore to be considered as broadly facutal in its conclusions?
Tom Kean says the scene in question is “reasonable accurate.” You guys keep swearing up and down that scene in question is totally false and you’re basing this on nothing more than objection by Richard Ben Veniste and Sandy Berger.
And let’s look at what the report stated about Berger:
…[L]ook now to what the 9/11 report has to say about the man to whom President Clinton, under attack by an independent counsel,delegated so much in respect of national security, Samuel “Sandy” Berger. The report cites a 1998 meeting between Mr. Berger and the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, at which Mr. Tenet presented a plan to capture Osama bin Laden.
“In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to see him acquitted,” the report says, citing a May 1, 1998, Central Intelligence Agency memo summarizing the weekly meeting between Messrs. Berger and Tenet.
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger’s “handwritten notes on the meeting paper” referring to “the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties.”According to the Berger notes, “if he responds, we’re blamed.”
On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council’s counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: “In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, ‘no.’ ”
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a “Predator” drone. Reports the commission: “In the memo’s margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, ‘I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.’ ”
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
It is entirely possible that the writers took these series of events and mashed them together into one scene in order to enhance the DRAMATIC EFFECT, something filmmakers do ALL THE TIME.
“Man, what a lame fucking dodge that was. Forget ‘All The Presidents Men.’”
YOU brought it up. Now you say ‘Forget it’?
Haw! Lame dodge, indeed.
I asked where the movie was being promoted as fact.
And I showed you, not once, but twice. But you seem to have missed it both times, so here it is again:
“Beginning with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and ending on the morning of 9/11, the miniseries draws on detailed information from the Report and other sources to take viewers on an unforgettable journey through the events that presaged that fateful day — to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period.”
And I would have no problem with that whatosever if it was entirely fictional but IT ISN’T IT IS BEING PROMOTED AS A DRAMATISATION OF REAL EVENTS AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT AND THEN BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY SAW IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DO YOU UNDERSTAND OUR OBJECTIONS NOW OR SHOULD I KEEP MY FINGER ON THE SHIFT BUTTON A BIT LONGER
“It is entirely possible that the writers took these series of events and mashed them together into one scene…” and added a fictional CIA agent who has bin Laden surrounded with the help of the real-life leader of the Northern Alliance, making an imaginary phone call to the real-life national security advisor who hangs up on him leaving the real-life terrorist at large.
No confusion there, right?
YOU brought it up. Now you say ‘Forget it’?
Haw! Lame dodge, indeed.And I showed you, not once, but twice. But you seem to have missed it both times, so here it is again:
It doesn’t say anything about them saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact.” Try again.
IT ISN’T IT IS BEING PROMOTED AS A DRAMATISATION OF REAL EVENTS AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT AND THEN BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY SAW IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Right. And I saw ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and millions of others did as well. We all now believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she gave birth to a daughter.
Could you be any more lame?
and added a fictional CIA agent who has bin Laden surrounded with the help of the real-life leader of the Northern Alliance, making an imaginary phone call to the real-life national security advisor who hangs up on him leaving the real-life terrorist at large.
Once again:
Ban ‘JFK’? Yes or no?
Should the movie JFK be banned? You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it. So I ask again: ban ‘JFK’?
YOU brought it up. Now you say ‘Forget it’?
Haw! Lame dodge, indeed.
Because I asked about dramatic license in a film and like a total Wendell geek, you said, “Oh, but actions by government officials portrayed in the movie were entirely made up?” So I gave you a movie where actions by government officals were entirely made up. Again, I ask: Ban the movie JFK or not?
And I showed you, not once, but twice. But you seem to have missed it both times, so here it is again:
It doesn’t say anything about them saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact.” Try again.
IT ISN’T IT IS BEING PROMOTED AS A DRAMATISATION OF REAL EVENTS AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT AND THEN BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY SAW IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Right. And I saw ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and millions of others did as well. We all now believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she gave birth to a daughter.
Could you be any more lame?
and added a fictional CIA agent who has bin Laden surrounded with the help of the real-life leader of the Northern Alliance, making an imaginary phone call to the real-life national security advisor who hangs up on him leaving the real-life terrorist at large.
Once again:
Ban ‘JFK’? Yes or no?
Should the movie JFK be banned? You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it. So I ask again: ban ‘JFK’?
** Sorry for the double post, but I goofed on my HTML.
YOU brought it up. Now you say ‘Forget it’?
Haw! Lame dodge, indeed.
Because I asked about dramatic license in a film and like a total Wendell geek, you said, “Oh, but actions by government officials portrayed in the movie were entirely made up?” So I gave you a movie where actions by government officals were entirely made up. Again, I ask: Ban the movie JFK or not?
And I showed you, not once, but twice. But you seem to have missed it both times, so here it is again:
It doesn’t say anything about them saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact.” Try again.
IT ISN’T IT IS BEING PROMOTED AS A DRAMATISATION OF REAL EVENTS AND SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH IT AND THEN BELIEVE THAT WHAT THEY SAW IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
Right. And I saw ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and millions of others did as well. We all now believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and she gave birth to a daughter.
Could you be any more lame?
and added a fictional CIA agent who has bin Laden surrounded with the help of the real-life leader of the Northern Alliance, making an imaginary phone call to the real-life national security advisor who hangs up on him leaving the real-life terrorist at large.
Once again:
Ban ‘JFK’? Yes or no?
Should the movie JFK be banned? You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it. So I ask again: ban ‘JFK’?
** Sorry for the TRIPLE post, but I goofed on my HTML.
It’s like if someone made a “fictionalized drama” about the Katrina disaster that included the President sitting in a room being warned about the danger of levees breaching and saying nothing, and asking no questions, and appearing disinterested.
Oh wait…..
Again, I ask: Ban the movie JFK or not?
No, you go first, Jay.
Waaay back upthread, I asked:
“How would you feel about a “drama” that shows a young George Bush snorting a few lines of cocaine? Or one that portrayed President George Bush as saying, “Aw, those folks down in New Orleans won’t vote for me. Screw ‘em!”"
But instead of answering, you chose a…what was your charming phrase?…a “lame fucking dodge”?
At any rate, JFK was widely discussed and criticized. Oliver Stone’s name became synonymous with “left-wing, conspiracy theorist loon” and I don’t recall any serious assertion that his account of events were factual.
If the same circumstances held now, I’d be less disturbed by TPT 9-11.
“You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it.”
Doesn’t your mouth get tired when you keep talking out of both sides of it like that?
First you give me: “It doesn’t say anything about them saying, “Everything in this movie is a fact.” Try again.”
Then finish off with: “You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it.”
So are we reading between the lines or not?
Any promotion that promises to help us understand “the events that presaged that fateful day — to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period” would seem to be promising us facts, no?
And banning “JFK”? Let’s pull a play from the Caruso playbook for that one: Where exactly did I say that? Says who?
The da Vinci Code acutally WAS promoted as fiction. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Says Jay, based on his faulty and biased description thereof. It’s a strawman, just ignore it.
You seem to have forgotten the conservative outrage over “The Reagans” on CBS.
If Oliver & Quaker had their way, Saving Private Ryan would have never been shown. After all, they made up events out of whole cloth too. And it was definitly sold as a recreation “of that fateful day”.
Shorter farris: “Look over here!”
The da Vinci Code acutally WAS promoted as fiction. What the fuck is wrong with you?
What the fuck is wrong with you? Your name NIMROD is perfectly apt. Dan Brown took to the airwaves promoting all of the background information in the book as fact. He said if he were to write a non-fiction book on the subject, he’d change nothing. According to him, the only things made up in the book were the characters he used to tell the story. Don’t even try it.
Waaay back upthread, I asked:
Quaker, I don’t care about your hypotheticals. I am asking you about something that exists and you’re refusing to answer.
At any rate, JFK was widely discussed and criticized.
Fine, and the same thing can happen with TPT 9/11, correct?
Any promotion that promises to help us understand “the events that presaged that fateful day — to understand what went right and wrong, and what can be learned from this crucial eight-year period” would seem to be promising us facts, no?
And I cited to you from the report that Sandy Berger often times wilted on going after bin Laden due to a bunch of issues. It seems to me that the scene in question that has everybody in such an uproar took those instances where Berger disallowed certain attacks to go forward and put them together in one scene for dramatic effect.
Again, (and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again) this is something that many filmmakers do. And just about every movie these days contains a disclaimer at the end of the credits either telling us that any resemblance to real people is coincidence in the case of a true work of fiction or that certain scenes or characters were made up for dramatic effect.
For most people, this would be ok. But what is really about? It has nothing to do with this one particular scene. If the scene were cut out, it wouldn’t matter. Democrats would still be having a hissy fit. Why?
I said as much earlier. They want everybody to believe that only person to blame for 9/11 is President Bush. They don’t want anybody to know about the Clinton administration’s culpability. They know most people aren’t going to read the 9/11 reports, nor did they watch the hearings. But a television mini-series? Well. That’s a whole different ballgame. And it must be stopped.
Quaker, I don’t care about your hypotheticals.
Then I don’t care about yours either. Last I checked, I don’t have the power to censor or ban movies from network TV.
Last I checked, I don’t have the power to censor or ban movies from network TV.
Fine, and the same thing can happen with TPT 9/11, correct?
Yes. And don’t forget the rest: the writer’s name is made synonymous with “right-wing, revisionist loon” and nobody promotes it as a factual account.
“It seems to me that the scene in question that has everybody in such an uproar took those instances where Berger disallowed certain attacks to go forward and put them together in one scene for dramatic effect.”
Only in real life, it was a “plan.” In the re-telling in TPT 9-11, the totally fictitious-nobody-would-believe-it Berger throws the flag on a CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan who has bin Laden surrounded.
Same thing, right?
I said as much earlier. They want everybody to believe that only person to blame for 9/11 is President Bush.
And Bush apologists want Bush to receive none.
And it must be stopped.
Reagans?
Heck.
Fixed?
Do you agree with their position, yes or no?
I said I don’t care about your hypotheticals if you don’t care about mine.
Longer factcheck: if I’m snarky enough, maybe people won’t notice that he just destroyed Quaker’s argument.
“If Oliver & Quaker had their way, Saving Private Ryan would have never been shown.”
Wrong!
Next.
Damn! I keep screwing things up with the HTML. Sorry.
Ok, where were we?
Only in real life, it was a “plan.” In the re-telling in TPT 9-11, the totally fictitious-nobody-would-believe-it Berger throws the flag on a CIA agent on the ground in Afghanistan who has bin Laden surrounded.
Same thing, right?
Nobody said it was the same thing. That’s what filmmakers call dramatic license.
And Bush apologists want Bush to receive none.
The film is critical of the Bush administration as well. But I guess since they didn’t show him remote piloting the planes into the WTC, it’s not good enough.
Do you agree with their position, yes or no?
I said I don’t care about your hypotheticals if you don’t care about mine.
I didn’t ask you a “What if?” question. I told you that the DNC is on record as wanting this movie taken off the air. Do you agree with their position, yes or no?
And bring up the Reagans all you want. I am conservative and a libertarian, but when it comes to what is on television, radio, on the Internet, and in the movie theaters…..if people don’t don’t like it, don’t watch it.
CBS caved to pressure and shoved ‘The Reagans’ over to Showtime. That was their problem. As for the people that freaked out about it, they could have just not watched it.
I suggest people who have their panties in a wad over TPT 9/11 do the same.
Farris and Jay: why are you both too scared to touch the fact that Disney’s sending what you yourselves call “lies” out to students as “facts.”
If you had either honor or integrity, you wouldn’t run so desperately from this fact. As it is, you’re not doing your cause any credit, boys.
That’s what filmmakers call dramatic license.
Indeed. And when they employ that license in telling a story “based on the Report of the 9-11 Commission”, they’re misleading people.
I didn’t ask you a “What if?” question. I told you that the DNC is on record as wanting this movie taken off the air. Do you agree with their position, yes or no?
So what? I’m not a member of the DNC. I have no influence on the DNC. I am not employed by the DNC or ABC, the IRA or the BFD. Your question is hypothetical.
As for my opinion, it was clearly stated above:
“At any rate, JFK was widely discussed and criticized. Oliver Stone’s name became synonymous with “left-wing, conspiracy theorist loon” and I don’t recall any serious assertion that his account of events were factual.
If the same circumstances held now, I’d be less disturbed by TPT 9-11.”
Farris and Jay: why are you both too scared to touch the fact that Disney’s sending what you yourselves call “lies” out to students as “facts.”
Nothing has been sent to students.
If you had either honor or integrity, you wouldn’t run so desperately from this fact. As it is, you’re not doing your cause any credit, boys
If you had any sense, you wouldn’t be repeating lies about copies of the movie being sent to schools or “to students.”
…And don’t forget how they’re pimping out 100K copies of this thing to high schools as history lessons:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609060008?src=item200609060008
No matter how thin you slice it, sending it to schools as a “Discussion Guide for the Classroom” qualifies as a claim of legitimacy and truth.
Jay, your sauce is so weak as to be laughable. You got shot down by some guy just passing thru.
The Democratic National Committee is on record as saying they want this off the air.
Do you agree with their position, yes or no?
And I call goalposts again.
You started out with: “Should the movie JFK be banned? You obviously support pulling ‘The Path To 9/11′ from the airwaves. You want to censor it. So I ask again: ban ‘JFK’?” and then moved to agreeing or disagreeing with the DNC.
Indeed. And when they employ that license in telling a story “based on the Report of the 9-11 Commission”, they’re misleading people.
No Quaker, artistic or dramatic license is something is undertaken by filmmakers and other artists in the name of art in order to enhance certain events. They’ll do it to elevate something. This is what happens often when what would be standard fare for say, a documentary, is made into a dramatic film.
It’s amazing. I thought liberals were the open minded artistic ones. Here I am, the supposedly tight ass conservative, having to explain dramatic license to libs.
So what? I’m not a member of the DNC. I have no influence on the DNC. I am not employed by the DNC or ABC, the IRA or the BFD. Your question is hypothetical.
I merely asked if you agreed with somebody else’s position. I didn’t ask you a hypothetical. A hypothetical would have been, “Would you take this off the air if you could?” That’s not what I asked, hence my question was not a hypothetical. You just don’t want to answer the question.
And Quaker, the very fact that ‘JFK’set off such a firestorm of debate about the circumstances surrounding JFK’s assassination shows that a lot of people accepted a lot of what was in Stone’s film.
“Here I am, the supposedly tight ass conservative, having to explain dramatic license to libs.”
Don’t flatter yourself. That’s onl