The Path to 9/11

I think most people who follow American politics would agree that the Clinton administration was not hawkish. Many of his opponents criticized him for this, while many supporters applauded him – especially as he drastically reduced defense spending shortly after taking office in 1993. There is not a lot of controversy there, and whether you supported this or not, it was intelligible to a certain degree, since a US territory had not been attacked since WWII. Many Americans did not see a threat, and most were caught off-guard on 9/11.

Therefore, by depicting the Clinton Administration's political cautiousness to not go on the offensive without precedence, especially during a scandal, and later a heated election between Gore and Bush, was not a political attack on Clinton, but a fair assessment of what was happening in Washington at the time. Clinton may have been weak on national security, and fearful of creating turmoil in the Middle East, but he certainly would have been criticized from the right by putting boots on the ground while campaigning for Gore. This was even acknowledged in the movie.

As far as the dialog, I'm not sure if anyone involved with this movie had any first or second-hand knowledge of comments made by Secretary Albright or George Tenet; or if Barbara Bodine was really that nasty. However, I think the general description of where the main players stood was generally accurate, and is supported by the 9/11 report and what facts are known.

Overall, I think this was a great movie, and if anything, I hope people realize that the real enemies are the terrorists, who are still a threat, and will attack if left alone.

The ruckus raised by Clinton supporters and leftists over this movie has been surprising.

In a previous comment, IMDb user "Ed" wrote "Regardless of ones political leanings, I think it is despicable for 9/11 to be fictionalized and history rewritten simply for political gain." I'd ask Ed a number of questions: How does broadcasting a movie qualify as rewriting history? In your opinion, do movies such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," for instance, qualify as rewriting history? Have you seen this TV movie, read the script, read a treatment of the script, or had any access to this material prior to the movie's upcoming broadcast? For years, the American left has been sympathetic to any artistic expression that offends conservatives or religious people. Now there's a movie that, according to some, might portray their Golden Boy, Clinton, in a less than amorous light. None of us have seen the movie yet, but at the mere suggestion, the left is up in arms.

I'd suggest that those on the left take the same advice they've given others for years: "If you don't like the content, don't watch the movie." I'd also suggest that you'd be ahead to see the film before you decide if you like it, if it's factual, etc. Meanwhile, there are many people who are interested in seeing the film, who remember the historical events (pre and post 9/11) that it proposes to portray, and who are capable of checking other resources and deciding for ourselves if the movie is accurate or not.

Any movie about this subject matter is going to encourage debate. I'd ask those on the left who don't want this movie shown to consider the transparency of their actions. Why is the prospect of debate so threatening? Why do you want the debate strangled before it starts? Are you afraid that it's a debate you can't win?

Ed writes: " But to completely falsify information, and then LIE about falsifying it, especially about an event still so painful to many people, is just way below acceptable." I'd like the chance to see the film and decide for myself if that's the case, Ed. Why do you find that prospect so threatening?

Honestly, Ed, the idea that Hollywood (of all places) would really do anything to tarnish the legacy of their favorite President is, at best, amusing.

I'll be honest. I didn't know this movie was made until all the talking heads started complaining about it, or defending it, whichever the case may be. So I decided to watch it. Not bad. Not bad at all.

In case you've been actively trying to avoid the hype as I had, "Path to 9/11" uses various sources, including the official 9/11 Commission Report, to portray the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The movie delves into the bureaucratic pissing contest that took place among many government agencies.

As a thriller, it was good. Harvey Keitel played special agent Jonh O'Neill, who followed the growth of terrorism for over eight years. Newcomer Prasanna Puwanarajah played our inside man, Ishtiak, a smart but nervous Islamic snitch who gave the CIA dirt on Ramzi Yousef (played with much anger by Nabil Elouhabi) and Osama bin Laden. And Donnie Wahlberg was totally believable as "Kirk," a CIA secret agent.

Also good was the make-up jobs, particularly Penny Jerald Johnson (as Condaleezza Rice) and Shirley Douglas (as Madeline Albright), who looked just like the characters they played.

My biggest problem was the length of the movie. at five hours without commercials, it's pretty damn long. It dragged on in several spots.

Another note: Did anyone notice that a vast majority of the votes are either 1 or 10? A bit of partisanship, maybe? Those of you who voted 1, did you see the movie, or did you hear that the Clinton staff was angry about it and refuse to watch it?

No this isn't factual history but since when has that particularly bothered US filmmakers?! The point is if you want an exact version of events read a book on the subject, it is very clear you cannot provide a full and 100% accurate account in the amount of time allowed by a film. Once you get over this point I felt that The Path to 9/11 was a well made drama which covered some very key episodes in the buildup to 9/11 and had some wonderful acting. The atmosphere of impending doom was beautifully handled and there is no doubt that one is left to dwell on some appalling mistakes made in the handling of terrorism prior to 9/11. What I find as a Brit remarkable is that so many on here are accusing the programme of rabid right wing bias. I have to say that I completely disagree. Yes the Clinton administration was made to look weak and irresolute, but I hardly think that the makers of the programme covered the Bush regime with glory either. The fact that the film ended with the lack of progress made since 9/11 means it is hardly a pro-Bush piece, but at the same time since it was the Clinton administration in power during most of the preceding events, it is only natural that it should shoulder its fair share of the blame. So why don't you lot get off your political bandwagons and just agree that the whole thing was one great big screw up (not that Britain would have done any better I assure you!)

This was one of the most flagrantly dishonest movies I've ever seen. About the only facts there were correct were that we did have a president named Bill Clinton, there is a country called Afghanistan, 9/11 happened and Bush was president at the time of 9/11. Other than that, it was pure fiction. People who were portrayed vehemently objected to their portrayal. The movie didn't even get the airline Atta flew on correct or the airport he flew out of. This was a sloppily researched movie from beginning to end. And of concern to me was that it was aired without commercials. The only other movie that I'm aware of that was aired without commercials was "Schindler's List." And it well deserved to be. Disney/ABC was well aware of the flaws in this movie a year before it was broadcast. Two FBI officials either quit or, after reading the script, refused to participate. No Clinton official was asked for any input to the movie. I also think it's sad that the movie's main character was John O'Neill who, tragically, died in the Towers on 9/11. Mr. O'Neill wasn't around to comment on his character as portrayed in the movie. But plenty of Clinton officials were.