ABC Mini-series - Path to 9/11

[The Chief]

Just FYI-- ...

Your four points:

Agree
Agree
Agree
Agree

Although did not know Deutsch, knew Casey and know Tenet, which I think I am the better for.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

"Why can't we be friends?"

 

[jmiller82]

American Airlines has issued the following statement regarding the ABC Miniseries, The Path to 9/11. Here it is:

September 11, 2006

FORT WORTH, Texas -- American Airlines today issued the following statement regarding the ABC-TV program The Path to 9/11:

"The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

"A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

"This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."


Very interesting.. It seems to me that AA is more concerned with their consumer perspective in regards to how ABC portrayed the check-in agent and how she "circumvented" the C.A.P.P.S. flag on the screen when Muhammad Atta (sic) was checking in. A4's, if you fly for AA, no offense intended. Maybe I just read the statement wrong, but it seems like the AA employees that were lost were at the forefront before those passengers aboard Flight 11 and others lost in the World Trade Center disaster. Am I just reading too much into this? I know the former Clinton administration & staff are seething right now because of their portrayal. Even the Bush administration wasn't portrayed as being "on the mark," but I don't hear them complaining about their portrayal..

 

[gregsivers]

American Airlines has issued the following statement regarding the ABC Miniseries, The Path to 9/11. Here it is:

September 11, 2006

FORT WORTH, Texas -- American Airlines today issued the following statement regarding the ABC-TV program The Path to 9/11:

"The Disney/ABC television program, The Path to 9/11, which began airing last night, is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

"A factual description of those events can be found in the official government edition of the 9/11 Commission Report and supporting documents.

"This misrepresentation of facts dishonors the memory of innocent American Airlines employees and all those who lost their lives as a result of the tragic events of 9/11."


Very interesting.. It seems to me that AA is more concerned with their consumer perspective in regards to how ABC portrayed the check-in agent and how she "circumvented" the C.A.P.P.S. flag on the screen when Muhammad Atta (sic) was checking in. A4's, if you fly for AA, no offense intended. Maybe I just read the statement wrong, but it seems like the AA employees that were lost were at the forefront before those passengers aboard Flight 11 and others lost in the World Trade Center disaster. Am I just reading too much into this? I know the former Clinton administration & staff are seething right now because of their portrayal. Even the Bush administration wasn't portrayed as being "on the mark," but I don't hear them complaining about their portrayal..

The reason AA made the statement is because it wasn't its employees that checked in the terrorists that hijacked their plane. They (the terrorists) started their journey in Maine, not Boston. Ergo they wouldn't be checking in at the American ticket desk in Boston. They were simply changing planes in Boston, and therefore probably didn't even go through a security checkpoint there. Thats the rub.

Here's a good article about AA's statement: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/15494253.htm

 

[Flash]

The work as a whole is fiction, based in part on the book The Cell, The 9/11 Comission Report, and other historical events. The movie Jarhead is based on the book of the same name. Does it mean because the book was a work of fiction mean that the author was never in the Gulf War or that the Gulf War never happened? Because the movie, World Trade Center is a work of fiction, does it mean the events portrayed in the movie didn't happen?

That is pretty twisted logic, and it does not dispute the basis of my argument. No one ever said the movie was a complete fiction, that is not only a little absurd but it also conviniently avoids having to address the argument that some of the scenes are complete fiction. If you use your logic you could make the same argument about many movies. Should we call Slaughterhouse-Five fact, World War II happened right? How about Platoon, based on Oliver Stone's personal experience's during Vietnam War?

I am not disputing the basic facts of the story, I am disuputing particular scenes that are portrayed in the movie as fact. While they might be used as plot device's or are part of a larger, generally accurate story does not make those particular scenes any more accurate or right to put in a 'factual' depiction of historical events.

 

[Flash]

Yes, its a TV show, but most of the stuff in it is right on the money. Don't worry, nobody is going to cite "Path to 9/11" in their college thesis as a legit source. It sure beats the Colbert Report or weekend update, where lots of my generation gets their "news."

Re-read (if you haven't already) chapter 4 of the 9/11 report, a document which I assume we can agree is reliable enough. I wasn't able to copy text of it, but on page 114 it talks about who gave the decision to call off a particular raid (the last good chance) to get Bin Laden. One of the big problems was Clinton wouldn't authorize direct assassination, and they had to jump through hoops for extraction. The right decision at that time: maybe/maybe not, but it had consequences. Also, all of Clinton's high level NSC appointees all point fingers now about who canceled the raid. Nobody wanted to be held accountable back then if anything went wrong because they knew Clinton would hang them out to dry. (that last sentence is my own inference based on all the finger pointing they did in their testimony)

That is not leadership.

I have been re-reading the 9/11 report today, and the mini-series so far did a damn good job following that document. I challenge anyone who thinks differently to re-read it after they watch the show. By the way, the UAE prince story is also in chapter 4-- it is not as you say "discredited innuendo."

Lets be reasonable: this al-Qaeda business (but not "terrorism," which is just a tactic) starts with Bush #1 and Saddam, not Carter or Reagan. Saddam invades Kuwait, we are threatened about stability and oil, we liberate Kuwait and station troops in SAUDIA ARABIA. Troops in Saudi --> pisses off UBL, he starts attacking us. That is highly simplified, and i am sure lots of people will disagree, but in a strategic sense that is the timeline. Anything before that may have led us there, but we could have chosen to act differently regarding Kuwait, and bin Laden would probably not have focused on attacking the USA.

That is my point, most of the stuff is on the money and the non-factual scenes will be assumed to be as true as the rest of the movie. And the average American is not going to write a college level thesis on 9/11, they will depend on mass media stuff like this.

The UAE Prince story is in the 9/11 report, but having just read the account it is by no means a very clear as to what happened. Unfortunately we do not have access to JWICS here and cannot get the full story. But having some experience in dynamic intelligence problems like this one are not always as clear as they seem to everyone involved. Unfortunately, they leave it hanging out in the air, incomplete.

As for the last paragraph, I certainly hope you are not suggesting that we should not have kicked Saddam out of Kuwait!? As for the origins, you might want to go a little further back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of the Mujahideen to try and kick them out (Carter and Reagan). This, combined with global Saudi prostelitizing of Wahabism created a ready pool of disaffected and radical Muslim men bent on fighting. The US, being a dominant player in the Mid-East, was bound to piss them off sooner or later. It is not our fault at all that Al Qaeda exists, it would exist whether we were around or not, we are just the most convinient target. They would have found someone else to go to war with, they are just that angry.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Your words in the order they came:

It is fiction, pure and simple.

No one ever said the movie was a complete fiction

I understood your first statement to mean that because the entire movie is classified as fiction, then all the scenes must be fictitious as well (i.e. the movie was a complete fiction). An analogy would be that because a document is classified SECRET, then every sentence and paragraph within the document is also classified SECRET (which isn't true).

That is pretty twisted logic, and it does not dispute the basis of my argument.

I know, and that's my point entirely. I don't disagree that some scenes are fictitious, hence my lack of response to address that part of your argument. But I think we're getting way too far down in the weeds here. The general theme throughout the '90's was that terrorism should be handled as a law enforcement issue. There were several opportunities to get bin Laden (dead or alive) and leadership at the highest levels in the Administration neglected to have the moral courage to do what was right for fear of risking their political necks.

I am not disputing the basic facts of the story, I am disuputing particular scenes that are portrayed in the movie as fact. While they might be used as plot device's or are part of a larger, generally accurate story does not make those particular scenes any more accurate or right to put in a 'factual' depiction of historical events.

ABC made it very very clear that the movie was not a factual depiction of historical events.

Here, I quote from the opening scenes of the movie (shown 3 times total before the first night's sequence was over: "The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representaive characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

I think those statements make it very clear that fictionalized scenes were part of the movie.

 

[Flash]

Your words in the order they came:


I understood your first statement to mean that because the entire movie is classified as fiction, then all the scenes must be fictitious as well (i.e. the movie was a complete fiction). An analogy would be that because a document is classified SECRET, then every sentence and paragraph within the document is also classified SECRET (which isn't true).

I know, and that's my point entirely. I don't disagree that some scenes are fictitious, hence my lack of response to address that part of your argument. But I think we're getting way too far down in the weeds here. The general theme throughout the '90's was that terrorism should be handled as a law enforcement issue. There were several opportunities to get bin Laden (dead or alive) and leadership at the highest levels in the Administration neglected to have the moral courage to do what was right for fear of risking their political necks.

ABC made it very very clear that the movie was not a factual depiction of historical events.

Here, I quote from the opening scenes of the movie (shown 3 times total before the first night's sequence was over: "The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representaive characters and dialogue, as well as time compression."

I think those statements make it very clear that fictionalized scenes were part of the movie.

It is fiction, pure and simple.

No one ever said the movie was a complete fiction

If one part of a movie, book, play, etc is fiction then the whole thing should and usually is ied as fiction. If other parts of the presentation is/are factual then it is still fiction. That is what I said.

I misunderstood what you were trying to get across, got it now.

The part abotu the administration having missed opportunities is a mix of judgement and fact. That is why I pointed out the missed opportunities from the previous administrations as well. Reagan's respose to the Marine Barracks bombing being the most glaring example, perpetrated by early members of the same Hezbollah that now has an arsenal that equal to that of a small nation.

Not wanting to watch some overblown and overdramatized 'docudrama', I never saw the disclaimer. Good on them for that, but I am still disappointed that they 'dramatized' certain parts though. It does a great disservice for everyone who watches it, which parts are ficiton and what parts fact? Too muddled on too important a subject for my taste.

 

[Flash]

"Hindsight is not wisdom, and second guessing is not a strategy."--President G.W. Bush, January 31, 2006

Shouldn't you take this quote to heart about this subject?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

a mix of judgement and fact

And that my friends, as I stated before, is what history is. Here, I'll repeat for those that missed it:

History is largely dependent on the person interpreting and writing about historical "facts", as well as that person's political, cultural, and personal biases.

....judgement and fact

Not wanting to watch some overblown and overdramatized 'docudrama', I never saw the disclaimer.

No, you'd just rather criticize it without having all your "facts" straight.

It does a great disservice for everyone who watches it, which parts are ficiton and what parts fact?

It's a M-O-V-I-E. What does a disservice for everyone is when people criticize something without even knowing what they're criticizing. A food critic who doesn't eat the food....a book reviewer who doesn't read the book....all, a disservice.

Too muddled on too important a subject for my taste.

How do you know? You've admitted to not watching it. Oh wait, the Washington Post already told you everything you need to know about it, right?

 

[Flash]

And that my friends, as I stated before, is what history is. Here, I'll repeat for those that missed it:

....judgement and fact

No, you'd just rather criticize it without having all your "facts" straight.

It's a M-O-V-I-E. What does a disservice for everyone is when people criticize something without even knowing what they're criticizing. A food critic who doesn't eat the food....a book reviewer who doesn't read the book....all, a disservice.

How do you know? You've admitted to not watching it. Oh wait, the Washington Post already told you everything you need to know about it, right?

The policies of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations contributed to our problems with terrorists today. Is that good enough historical conclusion for you, or is too much judgemtn or fact?

Facts like the ones in the movie?

A movie, I agree, but one that presents a distorted view of what led up to one of the most horrific acts in modern history. It may sit okay with you but not me.

I don't have to listen to every rap song to know that I am not going to like it, and I don't have to eat a whole plate of haggis to know that I am not going to like it. I also did not have to be present at a historical even to know what happened, liek Pearl Harbor for example. I read many reviews of the movie, not only in the Washington Post and the New York Times but also online at several news outlets including Fox News . After reading about several of the scenes, very detailed reviews of them, why the hell should I sit through 5 hours of made-for-TV docudrama crap to see it? Plus, what do you ahve against the Washington Post, too much reading?

Again, I have a specific problem with the 'docudrama' portraying events as they really did not happen. For them to trumpet that they got their info from the 9/11 Commision report, be advised by one of the co-chairman, and use other 'published materials' and then say it is not a documentary is a bit disingenuous at best. How the heck is someone suppose to seperate fact or fiction?

Obviously you and I will have to agree to disagree on this particular subject, or we can continue to chase each others tail.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The policies of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II administrations contributed to our problems with terrorists today.

I don't disagree with that. I haven't addressed that part of your argument because it really has nothing to do with the film. If you had watched it, you'd know what I'm talking about.

A movie, I agree, but one that presents a distorted view of what led up to one of the most horrific acts in modern history. It may sit okay with you but not me.

You're basing this view on someone else's view who did watch the film, but who also may have a different interpretation of how things really happened. Or they're just biased. Either way, I prefer to make up my own mind.

I don't have to listen to every rap song to know that I am not going to like it, and I don't have to eat a whole plate of haggis to know that I am not going to like it.

I'm not one to listen to rap either, but every now and then one comes out I do like. If someone asked me to critique a rap song I've never heard because they were interested in buying the single, I'd be doing them a disservice if I said it sucked because all rap sucks.

I read many reviews of the movie, not only in the Washington Post and the New York Times but also online at several news outlets including Fox News . After reading about several of the scenes, very detailed reviews of them, why the hell should I sit through 5 hours of made-for-TV docudrama crap to see it?

Umm, to make up your own mind maybe. Apparently, you let the newpapers and online news sources do that for you. That's ok so long as you acknowledge that's what you're doing.

Plus, what do you ahve against the Washington Post, too much reading?

I have nothing against the Post. I subscribe to the weekly edition.

Again, I have a specific problem with the 'docudrama' portraying events as they really did not happen.

I'll let you get away with saying that AFTER you've seen the flick. Until then, you're just going off of supposition and conjecture.

For them to trumpet that they got their info from the 9/11 Commision report, be advised by one of the co-chairman, and use other 'published materials' and then say it is not a documentary is a bit disingenuous at best.

I guess you prefer the Michael Moore type of "documentaries." So on one hand you think the film should be called a documentary, because not doing so is disengenuous. But on the other hand, the film is fiction, pure and simple (your words). If they called it a documentary, you'd attack them for doing so based on the fictional nature of the movie. At some point, you're going to have to pick a side. You can't have it both ways.

How the heck is someone suppose to seperate fact or fiction?

I'll guess they'll have to read the reviews in the Washington Post.

 

[pourts]

Again, I have a specific problem with the 'docudrama' portraying events as they really did not happen. For them to trumpet that they got their info from the 9/11 Commision report, be advised by one of the co-chairman, and use other 'published materials' and then say it is not a documentary is a bit disingenuous at best. How the heck is someone suppose to seperate fact or fiction?

Obviously you and I will have to agree to disagree on this particular subject, or we can continue to chase each others tail.

A docu-drama is just that: not a documentary. Platoon is just a drama (no docu). So the CIA agent's name was not really Kirk, so the hijackers got past security in Maine, not Boston... so what? They still got past security (directed at AA not Flash). I said several times the point of the movie is to remind everyone that we should not go back to our pre-9/11 ways of trying bin Laden in absentia (etc) and thinking we are too cool for school.

Sir, I am glad we got it cleared up that all my facts which you claimed were "innuendo" were actually true, as far as any reasonable person can be sure (9/11 report). Perhaps there were some complexities inherent to intel operations in that particular event that screwed it up. Unfortunately those "complexities" hindered us for years until the WTC attack. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... that sort of thing.

Kuwait: Obviously we should have repelled Saddam, but staging troops in Saudi set off this latest jihad. I am not justifying this, just explaining the causal relationship. Now that Saddam is gone, people forget what a big piece of the puzzle/thorn in side he was for many years. LOTS of changes since fall of Saddam. Supporting Israel,etc, wasn't the main cause because we did that for years before UBL got started attacking US targets in earnest. All those muj from Afghanistan could be fighting in Chechnya right now. I don't apologize for al Qaeda at all, in fact I think we shouldn't worry about being so PC in this fight. That is another topic entirely, but here's food for thought from an Arab Muslim (via Michelle Malkin)
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/o...apology_opedcolumnists_emilio_karim_dabul.htm

Lastly, many presidents have confronted "terrorism" during their terms, sure, but terrorism is a tactic. Terrorist groups are similar in their methods and overall horribleness, but al Qaeda (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shiite), for example, should not be equated just because they both hate us and are from the Middle East.

"Agree to disagree," but San Diego does mean Whale's vagina. I don't care what you say.

 

[Cate]

A docu-drama is just that: not a documentary. Platoon is just a drama (no docu). So the CIA agent's name was not really Kirk, so the hijackers got past security in Maine, not Boston... so what? They still got past security (directed at AA not Flash).

AA wasn't complaining because they got the city wrong. They were complaining because they got the airline wrong; he checked in in Portland, at US Airways, not in Boston at American.

And that's the problem with all of the "tiny, insignificant changes to improve the story"; we're told that some parts are dramatized, but we aren't told which parts, and some people are going to take it all as gospel anyway. "Screw AA! They have lax security!" Except no, buttercup, that part was dramatized.

 

[pourts]

AA wasn't complaining because they got the city wrong. They were complaining because they got the airline wrong; he checked in in Portland, at US Airways, not in Boston at American.

And that's the problem with all of the "tiny, insignificant changes to improve the story"; we're told that some parts are dramatized, but we aren't told which parts, and some people are going to take it all as gospel anyway. "Screw AA! They have lax security!" Except no, buttercup, that part was dramatized.

Use this rule of thumb: the dramatized parts are the insignificant details that aren't important as far as the story is concerned in a holistic sense. The point is they would have gotten on no matter the airline. "Have your bags left your sight since you packed them?" Wow, great security technique. Did anyone ever answer yes? The policy at the time for all airlines was to "hold the bags until they get on."

So it was Hani Hanjour et. al. not Atta who checked in at an AA desk-- in Dulles, not Logan-- had their bags held until they got on by AA personnel. Anybody who ever flew on an airplane before 9/11 remembers that security was exactly the same no matter what airline you flew. it was like this: :sleep_125 . Really the only difference between airlines back then was that Southwest cost a bunch less but you had to wrestle other passengers for a good seat.

Also, how did you know that my nickname was buttercup? :eyebrows_