There was another huge problem with "The Path To 9/11" nobody's mentioned

[AlGore-08.com]

Or if they have, I missed the thread.

The "good guys" of the piece were obviously John O'Neil, Richard Clarke and "Kirk" (the CIA agent played by Donnie Walhberg). All through the mini-series, these characters pushed for a military response to terrorism. Kill Bin Laden. Invade Afghanistan. These are the only solutions that "the good guys" offer. (And the Clinton and Bush admins are portrayed negatively for rejecting this advice.) At one point, Clarke sneers that the Clinton administration sees terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Respecting the judicial system - - especially the rights of the accused - - is portrayed as a weakness, as something that only helps terrorists evade the law. (William Kuntzler was dissed by name twice.) There is a scene where the FISA warrant procedure is portrayed as an unnecessary roadblock that keeps investigators from making obviously necessary searches. Racial profiling is portrayed as an effective tool of law enforcement; an African American FBI official is the heavy for stopping the government from using it against terrorists. It was heavily suggested that if we'd just let the Pakistanis torture Ramzi Yousef when he was captured in 1995, al Qaeda would have been destroyed.

There were at least two scenes where Reagan was held up as an example of an effective President.

And at no point does Bush take the heat for anything that happened on his watch. Condi Rice was the one who looked like a moron. Dick Cheney was the one who stood there, looking like a deer in the headlights on 9/11. When the off-camera Bush is mentioned, he "wants to get serious" about terrorism - - his only problem is that his Keystone Kops Kabinet had kept him in the dark too long about the terrorist threat. Cheney hesitates to ask Bush for the shoot to kill order, but Bush (again off camera) gives it as soon as Cheney asks for it. No discussion, no "the President wants to know what the options are". Bush gives the shoot to kill order as soon as he's on the phone. (Why it takes him so long to be on the phone is not covered - - and it's implied that it's Bush's moron staff that have him sticking to his schedule of public events.)

In short, even if the miniseries did make the Bush admin look like a bunch of idiots and wimps, the Bush agenda was promoted as the obvious solution to terrorism. And the MSM's storyline about Bush - - the steely eyed leader who decides instantly, from his gut, but who was let down by his advisers - - remains intact.

And one last point - - although I'm sure this one will be much less popular. There is an ingrained myth among our team that Bill Clinton has the ability to persuade everybody on the planet to agree with him. Well, Clinton made a big, public stink about the inaccuracies of the mini-series. He made it pretty clear he was going to sue if the mini-series aired. Well, guess what? He failed to convince ABC to shelve the mini-series. He could not do what the right was able to do about the Reagan miniseries, which was much less offensive. Now all he can do is sue ABC, which won't undue the damage that actually airing the mini-series has done. (And if he sues, he'll loose.)

Clinton has a lot of positive qualities. But he's not some kind of political God. All I'm asking is that we get real about Bill Clinton. We should have been real about him a long time ago. Because somebody who can convince anybody of anything would have convinced Kenneth Starr to drop the case; he would have convinced the GOP House leaders not to start impeachment proceedings; and he would have convinced the MSM to tell the truth about him, his administration and the GOP. All things he failed to do (and not for lack of trying) - - because he does not have the ability to convince everybody on the planet to agree with him. Can we all please do the gentleman a service by treating him like the mere mortal that he is?

[kurth]

1. O'Neill will get a hero/martyrdom award of some kind from the GOP Congress

if there is a GOP Congress next January.

[bushisanidiot]

2. Good Post. Did PT 9/11 include how O'Neil was ignored by AWOL Bush

and his admin. when they took over, and that was why he left to become head of security at the World Trade Center?? Did they also include how AWOL Bush sent $14 million to the Taliban right before 9/11/01?? My brother came over to visit right in the middle of the show last night so I missed a big chunk of it.

[schmuls]

4. Interesting...tell us anything you know about the money being sent

to the Taliban.

[bushisanidiot]

6. Sure. It's easy to find on the internet if you just look.

And I was wrong about the number. Apparently, it was $43 million.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040426/scheer0413

"On May 15, 2001, I blasted the Bush Administration for rewarding the Taliban for "controlling" the opium crop with $43 million in US aid to Afghanistan, to be distributed by an arm of the United Nations. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell announced the gift, specifically mentioning the opium suppression as the rationale and assuring that the United States would "continue to look for ways to provide more assistance to the Afghans." "


There's more here about how AWOL Bush made the U.S. the main
sponsor of the Taliban in 2001:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010604/20010522

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/nebraska/1386/bushtaliban43miilion.htm

[shifting_sands]

3. shifting_sands

Your points are well taken and accurate about Bill Clinton and the need to look at him as "mere mortal." I also agree that the lack of imagination among leaders everywhere is appalling. I don't know if it's men or boys or male type of energy, the only option they ever seem to have is blowing people and things up.

That said, unless you are blurring the lines between fantasy and fact I would disagree about Clark, O'Neill etc. O'Neil is dead, we don't know his conversations, Clark has stated many times that this is not an accurate portrayal of him or what he said or didn't say. Even ABC has admitted a great deal was made up. So I am not too sure what your criticism might be, it's hard to criticize when we really don't know what happened or what was said or suggested by these men.

This was a made for TV Movie, it wasn't not a documentary (no matter how they wanted to spin it) That's part of the problem in not knowing how to keep pretend and real separate, and part of the reason we will believe anything anyone says, we will believe all the spin because we think we are watching TV and we believe all that.

[RangerSmith]

5. I think you outline one of the reasons why Clinton had no real pull

about this as far as getting this thing cancelled..

ABC felt they had a piece that scattered the blame moderalty evenly enough that there wasn't going to be much of a leg to stand on in regards to bias. They also have some folks who have claimed some of the stuff Clinton denies to some degree actually happened. They felt they had a decent case.

CBS on the other hand was doing a piece where only one side was being looked at so they couldn't duck the bias issue and they had nobody they could place inside who would at least say a composite take on some of the scenes wasn't too far off.

Now, I'm not saying that's all right, just that IMHO is one of several reasons why it's played out the way it has.

[gumby]

7. Right-wing ideology was the point of that crapumentory.

You pointed out several that I noticed too.

At one point during the hijackings, someone asks if this is 'real or a drill.' Did the movie ever explain that their were many military drills taking place that day?

I never thought "that Bill Clinton has the ability to persuade everybody on the planet to agree with him." In fact, I often thought the opposite. He was (and still is) constantly under attack; from the Republicans (they even held Congressional hearings about his Christmas cards), Ken Starr and his staff, and the MEDIA (the NYT practically invented and sustained the Whitewater non-scandal).

[SPCAworks]

8. well

tbh, I thought that with 10 minutes more editing (stupid SBerger and MAlbright script) Path to 9-11 would have been a terrific movie, I really enjoyed it after the gag reflex in the end of the first nights show.

[newspeak]

9. what disturbs me

about the film, is someone mentioned where two fbi agents talking about getting a FISA warrant for a computer--most fisa warrants are not turned down, and I seriously doubt that one would have been-then agents talking about racial profiling, and blah, blah can't get the terrorists because it would be considered racial profiling. The film reeks of subtle hints of ignorant crap!!!! As if their hands were tied because they couldn't get a warrant or racial profiling. It sounds as an excuse so that they may do so now-so that we will willingly allow them to racial profile, allow them to do warrantless wiretaps or searches--because see, 9/11 happened cause our hands were tied. It's apologist bull. What I do know about Clinton, he was focused on OBL and terrorism-he attempted to get legislation passed with a Republican Congress, that at every turn roadblocked him. The legislation that stands out most, that I thought would have done the most damage (maybe some damage to certain US entities doing business with terrorists?) was tracking terrorist funding, which would have gotten into money laundering and drugs. Nope, can't have that--they do protest too much. His terrorism legislation was roadblocked by Congress at every turn, now who's fault is that?

And, talking about Pakstan torturing suspected terrorists or apprehending them? Maybe, we need to go back to the Iran-Contra BCCI scandal. You know, BCCI, a Pakistani created bank that was being investigated for money laundering, drug and terrorist ties? Maybe, we're living on a set in the film "Brazil", and terrorism isn't so black and white-who makes profits off of terrorism?

[KoKo]

10. Just remember, though that Bill Clinton + well over 100,000 signatures to

petitions by Democratic National Commmitee, True Majority, Think Progress, Move On.org. and many more thousands of e-mails and faxes to ABC and Disney couldn't get this removed or edited.

What does that say about our while Democratic structure? The one that couldn't seem to defend either Carter or Clinton against Repug attacks during their administration.

It says to me that the power and influence of the Corporate combined with Repugs and Media is total. We just didn't think it was as massive as it's turned out to be.

We blamed it all on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy/Evangelical Christians funded by Scaife or Falwell or Moon...when it fact it's Scaife + Murdoch + Corporate Multinationals + MEDIA (Print/Cable/Network) combined that shuts down anything Dems or Investigative reporters try to do. And, know we see it's been going on for decades.

[indygrl]

11. Clinton -best since Kennedy

Clinton was an effective president and could have been better if the Reps hadn't dogged him every step of the way. The movie tried to place blame on him because Bush had only been in ofc 9 mos. By that standard the bombing 3 months after Clinton was in ofc must have been Poppy Bush's fault.

Which reminds me I bought a new Buick in 1998 and had to trade it in because of electrical problems the dealer couldn't fix. Must have been Clinton's fault, he was in ofc when it was blt.

I always listen to Clinton's speeches every chance I get. He is brilliant and knowledgeable about anything you could ask. I think that's why the Reps went after him so bad. They were afraid of someone like him. Knowledge and personality. Bad for the other side.

[Bake]

12. Funny, I didn't see "My Pet Goat" in the fake-u-drama

Of course, I only saw the last 30 minutes of it.

Bake