September 08, 2006

My one and only Path to 911 posting

No, I'm not going to watch. Wasn't going to watch before, definitely won't watch now.

If they were going to do something like this, better to have gone all Herman Wouk on it and done a Winds of War type treatment. In other words, if you are going to add a fictional dimension to create narrative drive, make sure it's clear that's what you are doing. It does a grave disservice to the country if you are passing off something that's fictionalized as a reality-based dramatization.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want a right-wing version of Farenheit 911.

That said, the Left, you can stick a sock in it, right after you give Rovester a big fat apology for slandering him over Valerie Plame. And touting Farenheit 911 for an Oscar as a documentary, and for crying deep tears over the crushing of dissent by the right's "destruction" of the "career" of the Dixie Chicks. Threatening to take away ABC's broadcasting license because you don't like Path? Looks an awful lot like the crushing of dissent, baby. Freedom of the press. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Yips! from Robbo: Yeah, politics is all about whose ass is getting chomped at the moment. Suff on the lot of them, says I.

Posted by Steve-O at September 8, 2006 07:42 AM | TrackBack

Well Steve, I for one will watch. Since 9/11 I have read quite a few books that went to great pains to lay out the facts of the decade that preceeded this tragedy so, I think I will be able to discern misleading information. I recommend "See No Evil", "Why America Slept", "1,000 Years for Revenge" as well as the 9/11 Commission Report as pretty good sources.
I am revolted by the tactics the Dems are using to silence this show. Did, or did not, Michael Moore sit next to the peanut farmer at the Dem convention in Boston? Did the top Dem brass in congress attend the D.C. opening of his film and then praise it? I mean really, don't you just want to vomit?
I will be interested to see who the advertisers are that bought time during this show.

Posted by: Babs at September 8, 2006 07:58 AM

While the interpretations or spin of Farenheit 911 may be debated, there were no factual inaccuracies presented in the movie. This is not the case for Path. I also seem to recall a wave of rightious (pun intended) indignation that eventually got a miniseries on the Reagans cancelled.
Most of what I have read raises objections because of factual inaccuracies that purposely make the Clinton administration look bad. Agenda without facts, i.e. propaganda, and just before an election. Funny Disney found Farenheight 911 too political to distribute yet this one they are willing to air at a $30 million loss (no commercials). Strange behavior for a liberal media.

Posted by: LB Buddy at September 8, 2006 08:24 AM

LBB - I did not know that the show would be aired without commercials however, your statement that there were no "factual inaccuracies" in F 9/11 is incorrect. Just to name one; it is untrue that the Saudis were allowed to round up their buds and scoot out of the U.S. while our airspace was closed. And, gasp, guess who gave them the go ahead to leave the U.S. shortly after the attack? Richard Clark... So please LBB, don't defend F 9/11, it has been so sliced and diced by now that nothing else needs to be said; whole web sites are dedicated to refuting the inaccuracies in that movie.

Posted by: Babs at September 8, 2006 09:49 AM


Here(pdf) is the list of Saudi nationals that flew out of the US between Sept. 11th and 15th. This is the actual claim of F911. I don't want to get in a point by point argument about F911, but he does document all his sources here. ABC can't do that because they admitted to making stuff up. Moore put a strong partisan spin on the data, but ABC is lying.

Posted by: LB Buddy at September 8, 2006 11:29 AM

Please LBB,
Having not seen this movie you are able to say that they are lying???

Give it a rest. Also, go to one of the sites that refutes your claim and argue your point...

As I stated in my original post, various books dispute your claim. Richard Clark allowed the KSA jet out of U.S. airspace as soon as the airspace was opened up to commercial traffic.

Is it typical moonbat theory that, now matter what dissenting argument is made and, no matter how attached to the initial events that person might be, their take on events is wrong?

So, this leads us to the movie in question... To you, it is an inacuracy (even though you haven't even seen it yet). To me, it is another piece of information, understanding that it is a fictional dramatization of facts.

Which sounds more reasonable? Me, for wanting to view this particular film or the Dems that want to pull someone's license for airing it? Should I be allowed to view it, if not, why not? After all, anyone that had the price of a movie ticket could see F 9/11. Even if they didn't have the price of a ticket, they could see MM at the Dem convention being glorified.

Posted by: Babs at September 8, 2006 01:57 PM

From what I've heard, I don't think the movie really has a partisan agenda - the problem is that it's about "The Path To 911". It has a thesis that 911 was the culmination of a very long series of events, over several different administrations. For half of the country right now, it's a wingnut fantasy that ANY of the responsibility could fall on anyone but Bush.

Posted by: Dave Munger at September 9, 2006 12:51 AM

From what I've heard, I don't think the movie really has a partisan agenda

Pre-release DVD's were sent exclusively to conservative bloggers who, with very few exceptions (Steve to his credit), praised it. If there is no partisan agenda, why were liberal bloggers excluded? FBI consultants walked off the set because they felt that the story was being distorted too much. There is a lot fishy about this movie and the more you look, the more the details stink.

Posted by: LB buddy at September 9, 2006 07:09 AM

Pre-release DVD's were sent exclusively to conservative bloggers who, with very few exceptions (Steve to his credit), praised it. FBI consultants walked off the set because they felt that the story was being distorted too much.

And you heard or read this where exactly? Your post is a bit fishy.

Posted by: nuthin2seehere at September 11, 2006 01:04 PM

Despite my piscine affinities, here is what I am talking about:

Conservative bloggers:

When challenged to explain why the right-wing blogosphere is abuzz with praise for the film, director David Cunningham responded that "we are also being accused of being a left-wing movie that bashes Bush" -- a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence. I searched Technorati for mentions of the film and found 260 references, mostly from conservative websites, every single one of which had nothing but praise for the film. And although I found numerous examples of conservative pundits and bloggers who reported seeing prebroadcast screenings, no leftist pundits or bloggers had been given a chance to see it (unless you count's roundup of several 9/11-themed movies).

FBI consultant walks off:

James Bamford, an author and journalist who has written about security issues, appeared on MSNBC to discuss “The Path to 9/11.” Bamford revealed that an FBI agent who worked as a consultant to the film quit halfway through production of the mini-series because he believed the writers and producers were “making things up.”

Posted by: LB Buddy at September 11, 2006 02:31 PM