I planned to sleep with Helen Thomas.

I didn’t call her or actually go to her house and I’ve never actually met her.

I coulda nailed her, though.

You’re mistaken again.

No, I am not mistaken. It is right there in the report:

You’re mistaken about the other part. The part where I say that it didn’t happen because filmmakers put it into a scene with other events. I never said that.

Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?

There it is again. Your ignorance on display of the technique of creating composite characters. I’ve already told you that the agent in charge was Gary Schroen. Another part of the composite character is the CIA agent ‘Mike’ in the report who we now know is Michael Scheuer, who has been very critical of Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and George Tenet (as well as the Bush administration, calling the Iraq war a colossal mistake).

“On the scene” Jay? Do you mean standing in the dark at the edge of bin Laden’s farm? In Afghanistan? If we take this to extremes, I was on the scene in question: Earth.

but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.

Actually I don’t say that.

I do not say that it’s not true because the agent depicted is a composite. I say it is not true because the events depicted did not occur.

Quaker, in the movie the plan is not given the go ahead and in the report the plan is not given the go ahead. Who made the claim the plan was executed? The difference is, in the movie, drama is added by having the team waiting and ready to go instead of the team being told no while they’re sitting around in a camp somewhere.

Who made the claim the plan was executed? The movie, as you described it. It shows the CIA agent and U.S. military officers at the farm, putting the plan into operation and having bin Laden within their reach, calling the White House for permission.

The difference is, in the real life, the events shown did not happen.

I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.

Right and as I pointed out, it seems that this is the only part that was completely made up.

Before, it was Berger hanging up that was the only part that was completely made up. We’re making progress, Jay. Now we have two things you’re willing to admit were made up.

Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.

No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.

But they did happen (aside from Berger being the one who made the decision). It was a series of events and decisions that took place over a period of weeks that was compressed into a single scene.

We’ll have to break this up into two parts: 1) I do NOT claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene. 2)The events that did not happen: the approach to bin Laden’s camp, the presence of the leader of the Northern Alliance at bin Laden’s farm, the presence of U.S. military officers at bin Laden’s farm, the presence of the CIA agent outside bin Laden’s farm, the phone call, Berger’s dithering, Berger’s deferral to Tenet, Berger hanging up.

Other than that, the scene is perfectly factual.

There it is. One of a part of series of events over a period of weeks or months that was put into a single scene.”

No, it is a lie because the scene in question NEVER HAPPENED. There is a difference between having meetings to discuss what would happen if bin Laden was cornered and you know, cornering bin Laden. The operation never found its man.

You can’t have a scene where a cornered bin Laden was let go because, bin Laden was never cornered!

The screenwriter is “supposing” what would have happened if OBL WAS cornered. He doesn’t get to do this and call it “based on the 9/11 commission report”.

I’d like my waffles now.

I’ll list all the stuff you wrote that I agree did happen:

Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured.

Mostly agree. The 9-11 Commission report says Berger worried about getting a conviction. It doesn’t say he objected to the grab because of his worries. But close enough.

There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question,

Agreed, as long as “on the scene” means “in the country during the same time period,” not standing in the dark at the edge of the farm on the night portrayed in the film.

There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead.

Agreed. They “stood down” before the plan was ever actualized, though. They didn’t actually call up the White House (or Langley) and say “We’re out here at the bin Laden place. Can we go in now?”

The plan was not given the go ahead

Right.

So let’s review:

Tenet and Berger talked about a plan. Berger was worried about what would happen after the grab if the plan succeeded. There was a CIA agent in Afghanistan working on the plan.

The CIA ran some rehearsals (the 9-11 Commission report hints that those rehearsals were here, though, not in Afghanistan), but the CIA, specifically George Tenet, decided not to go ahead with the plan.

Which of these events are portrayed in the scene at the center of the controversy?

No, I am not mistaken. It is right there in the report:

In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. 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.

There it is. One of a part of series of events over a period of weeks or months that was put into a single scene.

Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?

There it is again. Your ignorance on display of the technique of creating composite characters. I’ve already told you that the agent in charge was Gary Schroen. Another part of the composite character is the CIA agent ‘Mike’ in the report who we now know is Michael Scheuer, who has been very critical of Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger and George Tenet (as well as the Bush administration, calling the Iraq war a colossal mistake).

Actually I don’t say that.

Sure you did.

I do? I say that? I should listen to myself more carefully. I thought I was saying that making a plan and executing a plan are two different things. That there’s a difference between things that “did happen” and things that are just planned to happen.

Quaker, in the movie the plan is not given the go ahead and in the report the plan is not given the go ahead. Who made the claim the plan was executed? The difference is, in the movie, drama is added by having the team waiting and ready to go instead of the team being told no while they’re sitting around in a camp somewhere.

I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.

Right and as I pointed out, it seems that this is the only part that was completely made up.

No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.

But they did happen (aside from Berger being the one who made the decision). It was a series of events and decisions that took place over a period of weeks that was compressed into a single scene.

And I did,

You did? Heck, I’m sorry, Jay. I missed it. Just give me the timestamp of the post where you explain which parts actually happened and I’ll go back and read it before I post anything else.

Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured. But YOU say this didn’t happen because the filmmakers put it into a scene with other events.

You’re mistaken again.

There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question,

Source? I’m interpreting “on the scene in question,” as at the farm on the night portrayed. Maybe you mean “in the same country”?

but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.

Actually I don’t say that.

There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.

There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.

I do? I say that? I should listen to myself more carefully. I thought I was saying that making a plan and executing a plan are two different things. That there’s a difference between things that “did happen” and things that are just planned to happen.

The plan was not given the go ahead but YOU say that it’s not true because the filmmakers decided to have somebody saying ‘No’ over the phone.

Mistaken again. I say that the movie portrays Mr. Berger as making the decision. The 9-11 Commission says something quite different.

Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.

No, really I don’t. I claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a composite scene out of smaller events that never actually happened.

I keep trying explain this as a filmmaking technique to you but you keep saying it’s not a filmmaking technique,but lies.

Can I have a nickel for every mistake I point out? I have never said that it is not a filmmaking technique.

As such, I merely pointed out in other films the filmmakers put together nothing but lies because they used the same techniques the filmmakers used in this particular movie.

And here we are, right back at good old square one.

“It must be true because other filmmakers make stuff up too.”

And I did, but because it didn’t happen exactly as it did in the report, you claim that it didn’t happen.

Tenet did confer with Berger about bin Laden and Berger did object to snatching him because he was afraid a conviction could not be secured. But YOU say this didn’t happen because the filmmakers put it into a scene with other events.

There was a CIA agent in charge on the scene in question, but YOU say that it’s not true because the agent depicted in the movie is a composite character.

There was a plan in place and dry runs were conducted about how to go about it and those who put it together wanted the go ahead. But YOU say that it’s not true because the filmakers decided to put it together with the other parts to form one scene.

The plan was not given the go ahead but YOU say that it’s not true because the filmmakers decided to have somebody saying ‘No’ over the phone.

Again, you claim it’s all made up because the filmmakers made a comosite scene out of smaller events spread out over time to save time.

I keep trying explain this as a filmmaking technique to you but you keep saying it’s not a filmmaking technique, but lies. As such, I merely pointed out in other films the filmmakers put together nothing but lies because they used the same techniques the filmmakers used in this particular movie.

September 8, 2:51 p.m.:
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen.

September 8, 3:22:
I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.

September 8, 4:10 p.m.:
I’ve been consistent on this from the beginning.

Once again, you are mistaken.

you can use semantics all you want.

Uh, you mean like the meanings of words anstuff?

I suppose you’ll never watch a film ever again where it is based on a true story, since unless it is totally and 100% to the ‘t’ just like it happened in real life, then the movie is nothing but a lie.

More weaseling.

You said, “The scene in question did happen.”

You posted a description of the scene from E&P.

You said the only thing you could see that was entirely made up was Berger hanging up on the call.

I’ve gone to great pains to look for the part that “did happen.” I’ve asked you time and again to tell us.

You won’t do it because you can’t and you won’t back off of your claim that it’s all true because…well, I don’t know why.

As near as I can make out, your argument seems to be: It really happened because other filmmakers make stuff up too.

That’s hilarious, “almost criminal.” How about the Bush administration’s actually, demonstrably criminal record in the fight against terrorism?

I suppose you’ll never watch a film ever again where it is based on a true story, since unless it is totally and 100% to the ‘t’ just like it happened in real life, then the movie is nothing but a lie.

Stephen Glass didn’t write bogus stories for ‘The New Republic’ because ‘Shattered Glass’ was filled with lies.

The crew of the Andrea Gale are still alive and well and still fishing. They have to be because ‘The Perfect Storm’ was filled with lies.

Richard Nixon was not involved in Watergate because ‘All The Presidents Men’ was filled with lies.

Al Capone was never involved in illegal bootlegging in Chicago in the 20′s because ‘The Untouchables’ is filled with lies.

The Chicago White Sox did win the World Series in 1919, and never betted with gamblers because ‘Eight Men Out’ is filled with lies.

The 1980 USA Hockey team did not defeat the USSR because ‘Miracle’ is filled with lies.

Henry Hill and Jimmy Conway didn’t rob or kill anybody because ‘Goodfellas’ is filled with lies.

Nobody should ever be allowed to see ‘United 93′ because it is filled with lies.

TPT911:
Back in Afghanistan, the operatives plan for the snatch job anyway, hoping for approval once it’s clear they have their man.

9-11 Commission:
On May 29, “Jeff” informed “Mike” that he had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern Division. The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation. “Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”

TPT911:
One night, they call Langley — they are ready to get bin Laden, he is nearby. “Do we have clearance?” they ask.

911 Commission:
Uh, what phone call?

TPT911:
Berger says he doesn’t have authority, he would have to check, they’re not all on “the same page.”

9-11 Commission:
Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar.

TPT911:
A CIA official tells Berger the president has approved snatches in the past. Berger wonders about the quality of the intelligence. The CIA woman says it’s never 100%.

9-11 Commission:
Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals. 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.

TPT911:
With that, Berger punts and asks Tenet if HE wants to offer a recommendation to the president.

9-11 Commission:
Tenet told us that given the recommendation of his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off” the operation. He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection was similar.

TPT911:
Tenet asks: Why does the buck always stop with me, like with the Waco disaster?

9-11 Commission:
Records no such question.

TPT911:
At that point, Berger simply hangs up — and the operatives abroad pack up and leave.

9-11 Commission:
No phone call, no hang up. And the “operatives abroad”, the Gary Schoen you mentioned, did not “pack up and leave.”

“Mike” cabled the field that he had been directed to “stand down on the operation for the time being.”

Jay: “Seems to me the only thing made up entirely is Berger hanging up the phone.”

Haw!

September 8, 2:51 p.m.:
No Quaker, the events surrounding the scene did happen.

September 8, 3:22:
I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.

Even real weasels admire your weaseliness.

I’d like that. Please do give a lecture to Mr. Frame about filmmaking technique.

I’d be interested in that.

it would probably have been better for the filmmakers to have left this scene out.

Why? You said it happened.

Clinton administration’s absolutely horrible and almost criminal record in the fight against terrorism.

“Almost criminal”?

Maybe after your filmmaking lecture, you can expound on that.

That being said, it would probably have been better for the filmmakers to have left this scene out. All it has done is see fit to distract from the Clinton administration’s absolutely horrible and almost criminal record in the fight against terrorism.

But Jay, at no point did Berger speak directly with a CIA officer in Afghanistan nor did he hand up the phone. Tell me how that fiction in anyway increases the “drama” of the moment.

No jackass. That’s called a COMPOSITE SCENE. Look it up.

I never said the scene played out EXACTLY AS IT WAS SHOWN ON SCREEN.

I have been saying all along that events that took place over time were put together to form ONE SCENE. That’s what a composite is.

Do you understand, or do I need to pull out another example from another movie to show you?