The Path to 9/11

As a lengthy TV movie, "The Path to 9/11" makes for rather compelling viewing at times. It's a polished, well mounted movie that begins with the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, and then backtracks to the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The story essentially is a set up to what led up to the 2001 attacks.

But, frankly, it works better as a piece of fictionalized truth than an authentic telling of the official 9/11 Commission Report. ABC might be insisting that their film is a "docudrama" rather than an accurate portrayal of the report's findings, but they and the filmmakers have gone a long way in promoting this as a definitive depiction of that report. In addition to the 9/11 Report, opening credits state the film is partly based on "The Cell" by John Miller and Michael Stone, while closing credits list "1000 Years For Revenge" by Peter Lance and "Relentless Pursuit" by Samuel M. Katz.

A disclaimer at the beginning says the film compresses time and some characters, but altering facts for dramatic purposes might not have been the best thing to do with this story.

Although there are several hundred characters in this $40 million film, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh, who, apparently OxyContin Limbaugh likes to call friend, wisely chose to concentrate on a few, especially John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel), an FBI agent who helped track down the 1993 bombers, relentlessly tracked terrorists and died in the 2001 attacks when he was WTC's security chief.

The performances are good - from Keitel to Penny Johnson Jerald as Condi Rice to Mido Hamada as Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud (assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks) to Donnie Wahlberg as a spy (likely a composite character). Some characters, however, seem tossed in for no reason, including the American ambassador to Yemen, whose motives are inexplicable and not explained.

The film bounces back and forth in time, but wasn't confusing. I wasn't bored, though how Nowrasteh opted to tell some of the story is utterly perplexing. The film also has a gritty style, reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic" (2000).

Where the film completely falls apart - I've no idea why Nowrasteh did this - is in crucial scenes so clearly made up for dramatic effect and to take potshots at the Clinton administration. I realize Nowrasteh calls himself a conservative, but the liberties he takes are preposterous.

Did a film about 9/11 and the events leading up to it really need additional fiction for dramatic effect? Reminded me of the 1929 film version of "The Taming of the Shrew" with the credit, "By William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor."

By now, almost everyone knows the major issues in Nowrasteh's script. He intercuts scenes of federal agents working hard and being stymied in their efforts with footage of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, including a bit from the former president's grand jury testimony.

(Odd, isn't it, that we spent $40 million to prove our president likes sex, but the same people who clamored for justice and truth then now conveniently ignore that we've spent billions fighting a senseless war on false pretenses and that not a single person in the Bush administration has been held accountable for all the failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq and since then. Instead, Bush honored people who completely screwed up with the Medal of Freedom.)

Nowrasteh clearly implies Clinton was too distracted by the scandal to pay attention to terrorism. Nowrasteh conveniently forgets that during that period, the Republicans pounced on Clinton and said he was using missile attacks against terrorists to distract the nation from Monica! He also accuses Clinton officials of balking when the CIA, with the help of the Northern Alliance, literally were a few feet from nabbing a sleeping bin Laden in Afghanistan. We all know this is pure fiction and is nowhere in the 9/11 Report. So why put it in? The same applies to an indictment of ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who Nowrasteh accuses of thwarting the missile attack on bin Laden's camp.

I don't know what changes ABC has done for the final version. I oppose attempts to get ABC to pull the film. That's asinine. But ABC should not - as it has clearly done - promote this film as factual. Clearly this film has an agenda, one that spurts forth from the imagination of someone who seemingly decided to put almost the entire blame for 9/11 on a popular president conservatives despised and still despise.

What's strange about the furor is that the conservatives who are crying foul over some liberals being upset about the film are the same people who were livid beyond description and successfully got CBS to cancel the airing of the TV movie, "The Reagans" (2003), on the network because of one line of dialogue in the film. And remember when conservatives asked theaters not to screen "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004)? I suppose it's too much to expect Mr. OxyContin and his dunderheads to acknowledge their own hypocrisy.

As a thriller, "The Path to 9/11" occasionally clicks. Hence, me giving it a 5-star rating. It keeps the viewer interested and intrigued. But it's outrageous for ABC to imply this film sticks to the facts. Nowrasteh and Cunningham have taken the 9/11 Commission Report, tossed in a smidgen or two from other books, and then added their own imagination to a story that is still fresh in everyone's mind.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding the government's failure to connect the dots that led up to the 2001 attacks. The commissioners attributed the inability to make the links to a lack of imagination.

You can't accuse Nowrasteh or Cunningham of lacking imagination, that's for sure.

Wanna see an accurate film on the lead-up to the attacks? Watch the History Channel's documentary, "The 9/11 Commission Report."

Honestly...if you remove all the political banter that surrounded this production & actually viewed the broadcast for what it was, which was a 'dramatization' of events that led up to the 9/11 attacks, then anyone could see that this wasn't a 'bad', 'evil' or 'smear' movie. On the contrary, it provides a very intriguing commentary on how the terrorists pulled this off, how we tie our own hands through bureaucratic inaction & red tape, and can be distracted, while bickering along party lines (which continues to this day). What's dishonest is to deny that the 'path' to these events occurred during both the Clinton and Bush administrations (from 1993 - 2001, which is the time frame for this documentary). Things were overlooked & mistakes were made by all parties...the signs were there, but we dropped our guard. And what is unfounded is why we're still not allowed to further scrutinize this production through a DVD release? Step up Disney/ABC...be bold & brave...this is not the era of informative oppression...this is an important piece of work that we should be allowed free & open opportunity to see/buy/discuss, IMHO.

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.

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.