Can someone who did NOT watch Path to 9/11 tell us about it?

[kentuck]

I would like to hear an opinion of someone who only knows what they have read here or have heard second hand. Give us details. Surely it will be more informed than someone who watched the "movie"? But, who needs to watch when we know already that it is propaganda? Turn off all the radios and TVs and just listen to DU....then you will be informed.

[nancyr]

1. I agree totally.

[jsamuel]

2. I disagree.

This has been the consensus of all liberal bloggers, the establishment Dems, and even RWer's. This was made to show "the Clinton Admin's failures".

The show made things up and then billed itself as "the Official True Story of exactly what happened".

[LSK]

3. you missed the point

I believe the point is that you should watch things for yourself and make up your own mind.

[kentuck]

4. And how many of those folks have seen the entire "movie"?

But if that is good enough for you, then that is your opinion.

[jsamuel]

6. so I should watch Fox News everyday to confirm that it is still propaganda

?

[LSK]

7. so when Freepers trashed F9/11 but never watched it

Did they have any credibility?

[jsamuel]

9. the difference is all too obvious. F9/11 purposely did not "make up scene

s" and then call itself the absolute truth.

TP-911 did.

That is not in dispute by anyone. RW, liberal, or even ABC.

[LSK]

11. thats funny, George Will tried to blame F9/11 of that yesterday

But I dont suppose you watch the Sunday morning shows either.

[kentuck]

12. Did you watch F-9/11 ?

If not, you would only know what "reliable" sources tell you, right?

[jsamuel]

14. I said it didn't "make up scenes"

It used real footage of real people. That is what I am saying. PT-911 used real people but used actors to make up entire sets of events.

[kentuck]

18. Everybody takes some "liberties" when they make a documentary...

Nothing is as pure as the driven snow. There is opinion and bias in every work.

[jsamuel]

19. obviously, bias is not the same as just completely making things up

bias indicates a slanted view on actual events

making things up indicates making up those events to make people have the bias

[kentuck]

21. But you can tell even if you don't watch??

I don't trust many opinions on DU or any other place. I form my own opinions.

[jsamuel]

24. There is a degree to which one can trust something and not have seen it

themselves in person. For example, did you see that Babe Ruth died? No. But there is enough evidence out there to confirm that he is dead without actually seeing his death. I guess the point is do we have a "reasonable doubt"? I say there is not a reasonable doubt that the PT-911 made up scenes even without being there to witness it myself. But that is my opinion. If you have a reasonable doubt, go watch it yourself.

[kentuck]

30. You can "trust" it but you can't validate it...

People can believe what they want to believe but I was only asking for details of the "docu-drama" from someone who had not seen it? Tell us what you did not see.

[jsamuel]

32. Can you provide me any evidence at all that I am wrong?

[kentuck]

34. Here is my synopsis after I watched it last night...

My perspective only.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2104034&mesg_id=2104183

[jsamuel]

38. nothing in there refutes that they made up scenes about specific people

where their actions in these made up scenes caused 911. Then called this "exactly what happened".

[LSK]

20. yet the right wing claims that it makes up scenes

When asked what scenes or did they see it, they have not seen it and they loose their credibility.

[jsamuel]

25. yes, they cannot even identify what is wrong with it, but we can about

PT-911

[kentuck]

8. You should watch and read everything...

and form your own opinions.

[jsamuel]

10. Unfortunately most of us don't have the ability to "watch and read everyth

ing". But I do agree that much research should be done by oneself and we should not simply trust the word of Kos or DU.

[Individualist]

5. When people like Clinton, Albright, Berger,

FBI and CIA agents say the movie is lies, I believe them and would no more waste my time watching a crap propagandamentary than I would go to FR.

[The2ndWheel]

13. How about not granting such authority all your trust?

Now I know they all have our best interest at heart, but damn.

[Individualist]

15. How about not telling me who to trust?

I'm very well informed and will form my own conclusions. Those conclusions certainly won't include input from neocon crap such as last night's propagandamentary.

[The2ndWheel]

27. Trust me

Fair point.

[gully]

16. Well fortunately not that many people tuned in.

I watched the bullshit "clips" and knew it was loaded with lies. I needn't torutre myself by sitting through the entire fiasco.

[Midlodemocrat]

17. No. but the Manning versus Manning game was great.

[dogday]

22. I will say I saw enough till I could not take the boredom

any more... The shaky camera, the close-ups, the monotone acting all made me sleepy, and I could not continue to watch... It put me to sleep....

[kentuck]

23. It was "boring"...

therefore, it had no credibility? Or, it was boring, so it was not worth viewing?

[dogday]

26. It just sucked as a cinema production

politics aside.... I wanted to watch to find the inaccuracies... I could not because it was just too boring... That simple, no partisan feelings involved with this...

[kentuck]

31. Fair enough..

you were watching for cinematic production. Other people were watching for other reasons, I am sure.

[dogday]

39. I was watching for accuracy, the boredom got in the way.....

[Neecy]

28. interesting that you bring this up....

I just got off the phone with my sister - an educated, life-long Democrat - and because of a work assignment she hadn't heard much about the controversy regarding this film.

She saw the first part last night and thought it was 'really good'. Then she cited two instances where Clinton could have gotten Bid Laden from the film - not in an angry, freep-like way but very matter of fact. Yes, if I had watched it I might have been able to refute whatever was in it, but I just couldn't in good conscience turn it on.

She insisted that it's 'only a movie' and she knows it isn't fact-based - but she still remembered those scenes where Clinton 'could have' gotten BL and didn't. It looks like what ABC intended might be working.

So, watching it might have been useful, but I really hate wasting precious minutes of life on right-wing agitprop. It's a tough one.

[Generic Other]

29. My synopsis (I didn't see it)

[Jed Dilligan]

Sure, kentuck

I tried to watch it for a few minutes. It did suck, not even the entertainment value of RW propaganda classics like Rambo and Red Dawn.

What I did see confirmed what has been discussed here as the more important point than any lies in the movie. It's designed to convince people that the constraint of military and intel forces by rules, protocols, separation of powers, and Constitutional rights are the problem that led to 9/11. To me this is a more critical issue than whether or not the film slanders Clinton administration officials.

[kentuck]

37. What specific scenes ?

Let's see if I agree with you?

[Jed Dilligan]

33. self delete

dupe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I didn't watch it.

It was boring, and untrue, and really dumbed down for its audience.

Family Guy, however, was pretty good.

There's this scene where Lois is drowning her baby, Stewie, in a washing machine. She wakes up and realizes it was just a horrible nightmare and she screams, "Oh God! I'm a terrible mother! I'm like that woman from Texas who held her baby underwater and gave him brain damage! I'm just like Barbara Bush!"

[lectrobyte]

36. Sorry. I watched it. Now sorrier.

[Balbus]

40. I heard it was more boring than the football game I watched.

Didn't think that could be possible, but it's what I've heard (admittedly from this site.) I did not watch it, though.

Was it a boring movie? And I'm asking someone who actually watched it.