The Path to 9/11

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?

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.

ABC's "Path to 9/11" really isn't all that bad as a movie. It's actually quite entertaining, and at times nostalgically takes you back to the early-mid 1990s. But the movie is clearly biased and implies that the Clinton Adminstration bumbled their way through the handling of terrorism, which ultimately led to the attacks of 9/11. Former President Bill Clinton and his aides are portrayed here as either buffoonish and/or soft.

Surely Republicans will think this is a great movie, as it portrays Clinton in a bad light. So of course conservatives will hail this movie as a masterpiece of factual truth-telling. The movie hints that former President Bill Clinton was so marred in his public scandals that he neglected going after Osama bin Laden and other Islamic extremists. The movie makes no secret of it's views that the administration blundered attempts at nabbing Osama bin Laden. Bill Clinton, the supposed root of all evil in America is of course the man we should be pointing our fingers at.

For years Republicans would blame Clinton for everything. And they are obviously still doing it.

1.If the economy is doing bad, it can't possibly be because of sitting President George W. Bush, no it's because Clinton's evil policies in the 90s are finally catching up to us. And conversely, the good economic times under Bill Clinton had nothing to do with him, no they were because of all the fantastic economic theories that former Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. implemented in the 80s and early 90s that took their sweet time to catch up to President Clinton.

2.The moment September 11th happened, there were cries that Clinton was responsible. Clinton is to blame for everything.

3.Clinton flew the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

4.Clinton fought with the passengers of United flight 93.

5.Clinton is best friends with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

6.Clinton blew up the space shuttle.

If the terrorists attacks happened under Clintons watch, Republicans would make you think that Clinton would assuredly have acted like some burnt out old hippie chanting "make love, not war" while marching in a gay and lesbian parade. Lord knows what the conservative reaction would have been if Clinton actually was president when the attacks had happened. It would have been even MORE Clinton's fault. Would Republicans have rallied around President Clinton? That's a tough sight to picture. So here is a movie to vilify the radical neo-conservative thought process. People will obviously compare this movie to Michael Moore's "Farenheit 911", but Moore is a man with a reputation for being a grade A nut-burger. Moore is known for distorting the truth and people walk into his films knowing that he is entertainment. ABC is supposed to a be a reputable network.

So how can a supposedly TRUSTED and REPUTABLE network like ABC promote a movie like this? It's even being pushed as an educational tool, which is outrageous. Here we are 5 years AFTER September 11th and the Bush Adminstration still hasn't found Osama bin Laden! Of course it's all Clinton's fault. Look if conservatives didn't want that Showtime movie about Ronald Reagan aired, then why do they want this film pushed onto the public and especially our schools? Yeah, you conservatives can keep hitting the "not useful" feature for my article so as to bury it in the back pages, but you know what I say is true and you know you are not being fair to the former President.

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 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.