“The story of exactly what happened.”
By on Sep 9th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It better be.
Otherwise, an awful lot of money is about to flow from the bad guys to the good guys.
September 9th, 2006 at 3:19 pmDitto…no more “Lost” or “Grey’s Anatomy”
As someone on another site (I think( posted….I love my country more than television!!!!!
September 9th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWhat happend to post #2 by dixie blood?
September 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.
-George W. Bush, (June 18, 2002, speech)
War is Peace
Ignorence is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Heckuva job.
I guess you can say that the US has been transformed into a Mickey Mouse nation.
-GSD
September 9th, 2006 at 3:43 pmit’s also being shown on BBC2 in the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/index.shtml?service_id=4224&day=sunday
September 9th, 2006 at 3:45 pmIt should be marketed as “The story of exactly what happened. NOT!”
September 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pmWhy is the ABC phony docudrama even being shown in Australia? Why would Aussies want to see a concocted propaganda film on 9/11/01?
September 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pmMaybe they are showing it in Australia in order to whip up popular support for the next offensive, afgainst Iran? We’re running out of soldiers, they have lot’s of warm bodies. And they seem to have forgotten Gallipoli…
September 9th, 2006 at 4:02 pmJay, I don’t think it is a case of who would want to see it but rather, a case of this bunch of one world order clown’s making sure every one is indoctranated to the reich winged crap….Blessings
September 9th, 2006 at 4:03 pmPost 9 Sharon > I realize that Bush wants all Americans brainwashed to believe in his “War on Terror,” but people in other countries are smarter than Americans, so less likely to be brainwashed to love Bush!
September 9th, 2006 at 4:17 pmPerhaps they plan to recoup their losses from the international airings. It’s commercial-free in the US, but what are the arrangements in other countries?
September 9th, 2006 at 4:18 pm#4 GSD
Don’t forget
Stupid is forever.
September 9th, 2006 at 4:21 pmDixie, I love you’re post’s..Question what is “Grey’s anatomy”.? Sorry I’m not up on everything…
Clyde, can I add, to bad being stupid isn’t painful, all in this administration would be in a world of hurt..
Jay, sadly, you are correct…….Blessings all
September 9th, 2006 at 4:46 pm#12 – Jay Randal,
September 9th, 2006 at 4:47 pmCurrently, the US is a leader in technology and science. W is devoting his administration to the task of rectifying that statistic. “No child left behind” is a program designed to ensure that no American is behind scientific progress and invention in the future.
Sharon – Although I refuse to purchase cable, I am a self-professed tv junkie. I wish I had a support group, but alas, I suffer. At least NCIS is on CBS – I can live without Lost and Grey’s Anatomy – I am unsure I would survive the loss of NCIS!!!
September 9th, 2006 at 5:22 pmDenver Post critic says “it doesn’t matter” if the Sandy Berger scene is fake. Disgusting.
September 9th, 2006 at 5:32 pmSorry Jules, I don’t know what that is either….I do have cable because it is not possible to get any channels where I live with out it…In Montana I didn’t need to but here our location is down in a hole and only satellite and cable get through.Not happy to pay so much but, Oh well!.I just have extended basic, no fancy show time stuff…I like NYPD Blue, CSI, discovery, c-span and the uof w stations..Catch CNN for cafferty and Lou Dobbs and some of the comedy stuff. And now I will catch football if I am lucky……..I don’t watch soaps or many of the sit com’s like seinfeld, never liked them…I do check out the local PBS stations for concerts and Sunday Morning is another favorite for me…….Blessings All
September 9th, 2006 at 6:23 pmWhy Does the Left Hate “The Path to 9/11″?
By Hugh Hewitt
Thursday, September 7, 2006
On Sunday and Monday nights at 8 PM, ABC will air a five hour mini-series, “The Path to 9/11.” I have watched it, and it is a riveting and in some respects horrifying recreation of the events from the hours before the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 through the awful events of 9/11. Rarely does television reach this level of drama, and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh deserve great praise from left, right and center for a masterful retelling of the crucial events leading up to the devastation of five years ago.
A five hour show that must condense eight years by necessity will not be complete, but it is very accurate. As a very accurate docudrama, “The Path to 9/11″ has drawn the deep anger of the Clinton political machine. Representatives of that era have been demanding at a minimum edits and some outright cancellation of the program. Monica Lewinsky makes an appearance, you see, as does Bill Clinton’s videotaped testimony about his perjury. National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is portrayed as indecisive, Madeleine Albright as misdirected, George Tenet as sputtering. The film does not spare the Bush Administration its shots either, but for the left in the US the most damning thing possible is a recounting of the deep slumber concerning al Qaeda that overcame not just President Clinton but all parts of the national security apparatus throughout the ’90s. The film does not damn those in charge during those years. It does however deliver a indictment of criminal negligence from which there is simply no escape.
By attempting a programming coup against the series, the Clinton forces have brought enormous attention to the film, and for that I thank them. The program is not primarily about the Clinton stewardship –or lack thereof– of the national security. It is not even secondarily about that.
Rather the mini-series is the first attempt –very successful– to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy.
In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the’90s. The program’s great faults are –they say– in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.
It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the ’90s. To hell with O’Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.
Not a word from these critics about the program’s greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.
Critics of the program want to argue that a five hour program has collapsed eight years too brusquely. There is, by the way, zero mention in the fve hours of the allegations that Clinton let bin Laden slip through his fingers when the terror chief was offered up by Sudan. There is no Atta meeting in Prague, no suggestion of a Saddam history of terror ties unrelated to 9/11 –in short, there is no reaching by the writer/producers/director. It is an objective show, and not one that will cheer the right. But any show that does not praise Clinton or hopelessly conflate the eight years of the Clinton tenure with the eight months of the pre-9/11 Bush Administration is to be condemned.
“The Path to 9/11″ is a faithful and compelling recreation within the limits of the craft of the fatal nonchalance of the ’90s, combined with a salute to the hard-working men and women who struggled against the bureaucratic insanities of that era, represented chiefly in the person of FBI Agent John O’Neill, played by Harvey Keitel, and a supporting cast of brave and never-discouraged lower level Bureau and CIA operatives who understood the risks. In trying to deep-six the series, the Clinton forces are trying to silence their story.
The Clinton operatives are also bringing a useful attention to the program and especially any last minute edits ABC might make. The network risks outrage from center and right if it airbrushes the narrative, and even from those in Hollywood who stand by the idea that a good faith piece of work should be unmolested by the PC police.
No matter your opinions of Presidents Clinton and Bush, be sure to watch (or set your TiVo) to ABC Sunday night at 8. You be the judge. Hopefully ABC will give you that chance.
September 9th, 2006 at 6:56 pmWell no matter, I won’t be watching it now, maybe in reruns and maybe not…I’m on over load from this miserable administration and have other plan’s for both day’s. Don’t plan on watching the actual event’s recapped either. And you all know how I feel about watching bush one more time. I need a break…..Blessings
September 9th, 2006 at 7:00 pmAs a conservative I STRONGLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11†before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative saying this.
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.”
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.
Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, “The Path to 9/11″ is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.
September 9th, 2006 at 7:49 pmi’m sure progressaurus rex will have some insight on this…
(did i spell that right?)
and i’m afraid that SKdeA #8 may have hit on a logical notion…
September 9th, 2006 at 10:28 pmkaty,
prog rex was getting deleted as fast as trueblue last night. I’ll be surprised if he shows up.
September 9th, 2006 at 11:00 pmDan must be a paid GOP troll to promote the phony ABC/Disney docudrama on this TP thread! Do NOT watch the propaganda film!
September 10th, 2006 at 1:50 amDon’t you guysa know that Australia is the 51st state of the US? They are going to ask for voting rights soon. We do what you tell us to so why not?
September 10th, 2006 at 6:35 am