The Path to 9/11 (2006) User Reviews

Terrifying and gripping, so why alter the facts?

[bigdex101 · 6/10 · 15 September 2006]

I watched "The Path to 9/11" in awe and horror. A superb piece of television: serious, thought provoking. It somehow managed to reflect the horror whilst retaining respect for those who paid with their lives. Harvey Keitel's face as he hears the sickening thud of the top floors of the WTC beginning to pancake; the prayers of the firefighter's Chaplain; the depiction of the incredible phone call between the United 93 passenger and his wife: I won't forgot those scenes for a long time. I'd also like to mention Martin Brody who plays Atta. It can't have been easy to play such a perverse character The look in his eyes as he headed for the cockpit chilled me to the core but he somehow managed, in a few minutes of screen time, to make the character three dimensional.

So I am saddened to read, in sources that I know and trust, that the film makers let some glaring inaccuracies spoil a superb script. I can well understand the anger of Madeline Albright and other members of the Clinton administration. But why did the makers let these mistakes stand? I really don't understand. They didn't add to or detract from the overall message: there was a huge failure of intelligence and defence. We simply weren't prepared. We didn't see it coming. Those who did, their voices were ignored or drowned out. Not by evil people, but by people like us who couldn't imagine that the USA would ever be subject to such a "successful" strike on its own soil, at the heart of America.

It makes me uncomfortable to think that our collective memory is subject to such false accounts of history. It is disrespectful and damaging to those who lived through the events, and more importantly, to those lives horribly snuffed out by the events. They deserve better.

Compelling, absorbing...but Clinton is to blame?

[anhedonia · 5/10 · 9 September 2006]

As a lengthy TV movie, "The Path to 9/11" makes for rather compelling viewing at times. It's a polished, well mounted movie that begins with the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, and then backtracks to the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The story essentially is a set up to what led up to the 2001 attacks.

But, frankly, it works better as a piece of fictionalized truth than an authentic telling of the official 9/11 Commission Report. ABC might be insisting that their film is a "docudrama" rather than an accurate portrayal of the report's findings, but they and the filmmakers have gone a long way in promoting this as a definitive depiction of that report. In addition to the 9/11 Report, opening credits state the film is partly based on "The Cell" by John Miller and Michael Stone, while closing credits list "1000 Years For Revenge" by Peter Lance and "Relentless Pursuit" by Samuel M. Katz.

A disclaimer at the beginning says the film compresses time and some characters, but altering facts for dramatic purposes might not have been the best thing to do with this story.

Although there are several hundred characters in this $40 million film, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh, who, apparently OxyContin Limbaugh likes to call friend, wisely chose to concentrate on a few, especially John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel), an FBI agent who helped track down the 1993 bombers, relentlessly tracked terrorists and died in the 2001 attacks when he was WTC's security chief.

The performances are good - from Keitel to Penny Johnson Jerald as Condi Rice to Mido Hamada as Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud (assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks) to Donnie Wahlberg as a spy (likely a composite character). Some characters, however, seem tossed in for no reason, including the American ambassador to Yemen, whose motives are inexplicable and not explained.

The film bounces back and forth in time, but wasn't confusing. I wasn't bored, though how Nowrasteh opted to tell some of the story is utterly perplexing. The film also has a gritty style, reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic" (2000).

Where the film completely falls apart - I've no idea why Nowrasteh did this - is in crucial scenes so clearly made up for dramatic effect and to take potshots at the Clinton administration. I realize Nowrasteh calls himself a conservative, but the liberties he takes are preposterous.

Did a film about 9/11 and the events leading up to it really need additional fiction for dramatic effect? Reminded me of the 1929 film version of "The Taming of the Shrew" with the credit, "By William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor."

By now, almost everyone knows the major issues in Nowrasteh's script. He intercuts scenes of federal agents working hard and being stymied in their efforts with footage of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, including a bit from the former president's grand jury testimony.

(Odd, isn't it, that we spent $40 million to prove our president likes sex, but the same people who clamored for justice and truth then now conveniently ignore that we've spent billions fighting a senseless war on false pretenses and that not a single person in the Bush administration has been held accountable for all the failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq and since then. Instead, Bush honored people who completely screwed up with the Medal of Freedom.)

Nowrasteh clearly implies Clinton was too distracted by the scandal to pay attention to terrorism. Nowrasteh conveniently forgets that during that period, the Republicans pounced on Clinton and said he was using missile attacks against terrorists to distract the nation from Monica! He also accuses Clinton officials of balking when the CIA, with the help of the Northern Alliance, literally were a few feet from nabbing a sleeping bin Laden in Afghanistan. We all know this is pure fiction and is nowhere in the 9/11 Report. So why put it in? The same applies to an indictment of ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who Nowrasteh accuses of thwarting the missile attack on bin Laden's camp.

I don't know what changes ABC has done for the final version. I oppose attempts to get ABC to pull the film. That's asinine. But ABC should not - as it has clearly done - promote this film as factual. Clearly this film has an agenda, one that spurts forth from the imagination of someone who seemingly decided to put almost the entire blame for 9/11 on a popular president conservatives despised and still despise.

What's strange about the furor is that the conservatives who are crying foul over some liberals being upset about the film are the same people who were livid beyond description and successfully got CBS to cancel the airing of the TV movie, "The Reagans" (2003), on the network because of one line of dialogue in the film. And remember when conservatives asked theaters not to screen "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004)? I suppose it's too much to expect Mr. OxyContin and his dunderheads to acknowledge their own hypocrisy.

As a thriller, "The Path to 9/11" occasionally clicks. Hence, me giving it a 5-star rating. It keeps the viewer interested and intrigued. But it's outrageous for ABC to imply this film sticks to the facts. Nowrasteh and Cunningham have taken the 9/11 Commission Report, tossed in a smidgen or two from other books, and then added their own imagination to a story that is still fresh in everyone's mind.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding the government's failure to connect the dots that led up to the 2001 attacks. The commissioners attributed the inability to make the links to a lack of imagination.

You can't accuse Nowrasteh or Cunningham of lacking imagination, that's for sure.

Wanna see an accurate film on the lead-up to the attacks? Watch the History Channel's documentary, "The 9/11 Commission Report."

The verdict on Path to 9/11

[Special Agent Silver · 7/10 · 12 September 2006]

I have not read the 9/11 Commission's report, but still watched The Path to 9/11 with the knowledge that any American who's been paying at least some attention to the world for the past five years would possess. I am a moderate, but I did vote for the president in the last election. (And I still have my doubts about him, even if I voted him in) Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I can give my opinion on the film. No matter what side you are on, I felt that this film was accessible and it was reverent to the events that had happened to a point. Yes it was partially fictionalized and yes it painted both administrations in a kind of ineffective light when it came to preventing this from happening, but nevertheless The Path to 9/11 is a good MOVIE. I am not saying that it's the end all, know all source for information, nor am I saying that it should be treated as a substitute for good old fashioned personal and unbiased research. I am merely saying that this was a good film that didn't go too overboard in its depiction of the events and the timeline that lead the United States to where it is now. In other words, it wasn't The Path to 9/11 directed by Michael Bay. An excellent film if you have the time to check it out, and it was good enough that the fact that I recognized the stars in the film did not take away from the gravity of the film's message. I will reiterate in closing: The Path to 9/11 is a good dramatization of the events that lead to that world changing day on September 11th, 2001; however I'm still going to go and do the research and make my own decisions just like any other patriotic American would do.

Gripping, fairly objective stuff - so says a Brit

[jeremy-liebster · 8/10 · 12 September 2006]

No this isn't factual history but since when has that particularly bothered US filmmakers?! The point is if you want an exact version of events read a book on the subject, it is very clear you cannot provide a full and 100% accurate account in the amount of time allowed by a film. Once you get over this point I felt that The Path to 9/11 was a well made drama which covered some very key episodes in the buildup to 9/11 and had some wonderful acting. The atmosphere of impending doom was beautifully handled and there is no doubt that one is left to dwell on some appalling mistakes made in the handling of terrorism prior to 9/11. What I find as a Brit remarkable is that so many on here are accusing the programme of rabid right wing bias. I have to say that I completely disagree. Yes the Clinton administration was made to look weak and irresolute, but I hardly think that the makers of the programme covered the Bush regime with glory either. The fact that the film ended with the lack of progress made since 9/11 means it is hardly a pro-Bush piece, but at the same time since it was the Clinton administration in power during most of the preceding events, it is only natural that it should shoulder its fair share of the blame. So why don't you lot get off your political bandwagons and just agree that the whole thing was one great big screw up (not that Britain would have done any better I assure you!)

Excellent

[Bob_Downe · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

I can't believe how many have commented and bagged it out without actually seeing it! This movie was simulcast worldwide on the 10th and 11th, with myself being an Australian we get to see it before you guys in the USA. I just finished watching the second part and for a TV movie i was impressed. I learned a lot about the event that i never knew from the time it happened. I honestly don't think that anybody will ever know the truth in detail, there's too much speculation and cover up. This film had me glued to my seat from the moment it started... Don't judge until you have seen the whole thing from start to finish. I know this is a very touchy subject for some, i remember watching in absolute disbelief when those planes struck the towers, one of the most horrific things i have ever seen.

Fictionalized, yes. But essentially correct so far

[sglacker · 10 September 2006]

I don't see what all the hoopla is about. The dialog is, of course, fictionalized, but the key events are all presented as they have been documented numerous other places. The missed opportunities, the insistence on treating terrorism as a "legal" problem, the overriding concern about political fallout- its all been available for anyone willing to read for years now.

It is somewhat appalling to me that anyone (now its the liberal side's turn to look silly) would be so blinded by the theology of their particular political bent that they cannot admit that a series of mistakes WAS made dating back to at least 1990. And would protest a docu-drama for exploring that fact.

A great Drama, Put politics away, watch it with open mind.

[kiajafari · 7/10 · 10 September 2006]

Well made. Not necessary faithful to the fact (as mentioned by network several times during airing of the series) but very intense and detailed. More interesting for viewers who follow the background of 9/11 attacks, attackers and the officials working on this case. While watching this series keep in mind that *Drama* is not straight fact. Sometimes is exaggerated and sometimes softened. Usually it is hard to do so, specially for people who feel closer to 9/11 incident. But if you try to watch it from not Republican nor Democrat point of view and just watch it to enjoy a good drama, you will definitely be happy. I specially like the intensity and suspense of this series. Details are well drawn and almost all the characters are very well introduced to viewers. I give it 7 out of 10.

40 mins into the movie and I bailed out

[riwach · 1/10 · 10 September 2006]

This new trend of shooting a film with jerky camera movements is not at all entertaining. Why do we, the audience, have to work at seeing what is going on? They purposely jerk the camera, hide it behind objects, make people pass in front of the camera or stick the camera up in somebody's face so close you can't even see their entire face. Do you like that? I sure don't! It's distracting. It reminds me there is a person with a camera butting into the conversation. Movie making should not make you aware there is a camera in the scene. It should be passive not active. They also keep moving the camera around too much, panning from one person to the next, or edit the film too quickly so you can never actually read the expressions or emotions on their faces. I am seeing this method being used more and more. I don't like it. It caused me to abandoned the movie. Was that what the producers wanted? I don't think so.

interesting & engaging docudrama!

[nortagem · 10/10 · 11 September 2008]

Honestly...if you remove all the political banter that surrounded this production & actually viewed the broadcast for what it was, which was a 'dramatization' of events that led up to the 9/11 attacks, then anyone could see that this wasn't a 'bad', 'evil' or 'smear' movie. On the contrary, it provides a very intriguing commentary on how the terrorists pulled this off, how we tie our own hands through bureaucratic inaction & red tape, and can be distracted, while bickering along party lines (which continues to this day). What's dishonest is to deny that the 'path' to these events occurred during both the Clinton and Bush administrations (from 1993 - 2001, which is the time frame for this documentary). Things were overlooked & mistakes were made by all parties...the signs were there, but we dropped our guard. And what is unfounded is why we're still not allowed to further scrutinize this production through a DVD release? Step up Disney/ABC...be bold & brave...this is not the era of informative oppression...this is an important piece of work that we should be allowed free & open opportunity to see/buy/discuss, IMHO.

left of the truth

[classyauto · 7/10 · 10 September 2006]

I find it funny that the movie is only in its first part and already all the Clinton supporters are expressing how disappointed they are . I for one agree that there should be more truth, Like why did he not get UBL when he had the chance? Or why we (the US) did nothing when the USS COLE was boomed . Please explain why he gets a free pass. I know it is all the current administrations fault, even though they had only been in office less than 9 months. I also have a problem with all the attempts to limit Free speech by having attorneys sending letters to Disney wanting to keep it from airing all to protect a make believe legacy

propaganda

[chris-sears · 1/10 · 8 September 2006]

This movie would make Joseph Goebbels blush. It is worse than the first 9/11 propaganda film, DC 9/11: Time of Crisis.

The Path to 9/11 is fictionalized with lawyerly disclaimers. This 'War of the Worlds' approach is appropriate for science fiction, but not for 9/11. The actual participants including Richard Clarke have denounced the movie as a fabrication, so broadcasting it is functional libel. It is being broadcast uninterrupted on 9/10 and 9/11, and Bush is giving a prime time speech during the broadcast on 9/11 which is crass.

With respect to movie making, the actors were told it was a history project. With respect to IMDb, the directors previous projects are unverifiable.

All this and there's a midterm election in two months. Isn't the country divided enough?

A rare case of TV fulfilling its potential

[Fred-S · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

I have read The 9/11 Report all the way through and 2 of al Qaeda expert Michael Scheuer's books and, as I watched part 2 of "The Path to 9/11", I couldn't help but think how much better it was AS A MOVIE (forget the politics) than Spielberg's docudrama, "Munich", which I saw on DVD several days ago.

I was hoping for a movie that presented the events leading up to the attack in a reasonably accurate, understandable, and interesting way. I never would have expected a TV network to produce something of this quality. What I saw was one of those very rare cases where TV lives up to the potential we once expected but have very rarely seen.

Beginning with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, it relives the events leading up to and including what many of us remember as possibly the worst day of our lives. Most importantly, it reveals the hard work done by American intelligence agents and the frustrations they experience as politicians repeatedly find what some would call reasons and most of us would call excuses for not acting. The portrayal of events is first rate with an outstanding cast led by Harvey Keitel as FBI agent and al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, and is quite consistent with the reports of the 911 commission and others such as Michael Scheuer.

Concerning the politics: I think this should be seen as a commentary, not on one individual or political party as opposed to another, but on how difficult it is to operate in a governmental system that encourages avoiding mistakes (that the media and political opponents can use to destroy one's career) more than taking needed action for the benefit of our society.

The movie is generally accurate based on the 9/11 report

[tcoolhand · 6/10 · 10 September 2006]

Despite the fact that people are discounting a docudrama for fictionalizing scenes, nearly all "Historical" films do this such as Braveheart, the story DOES follow closely the assertions of the 9/11 commission and former Clinton adviser Dick Morris. You can say the film takes some liberties with events but the fact remains this film does accurately portray the way the CLinton administration, including Madeline Albright, viewed terrorism. This is not a knock on Clinton, nearly every American viewed terrorism as a far away thing that occasionally would make headlines. To say the film is fiction is simply closing your eyes to the facts. You may interpret the facts any way you choose, but it does not take away the nature of the events. The Path to 9/11 is a clear view that terrorism was always a secondary worry from Carter, to Reagan, to G.H.W. Bush, to Clinton, to G.W. Bush. What this film also does is portray the way the various intelligence and government agencies all wanted to protect themselves from blame and responsibility. Again, this is nothing new, but the film does focus on that. Overall, it is not as compelling as reading the actual 9/11 report, but it does the job.

Let's spread the propaganda!! M-I-C See ya later abc

[sproutster · 1/10 · 9 September 2006]

The White House has confirmed that, on August 6, 2001, President Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) specifically focused on al Qaeda's intent to attack the United States, and specifically warned that airplane hijackings could be involved. According to press reports, the PDB included a fresh report from British intelligence warning that al Qaeda was planning multiple hijackings.

*snipped* due to artistic license

Boycott ABC/Disney

The idea of this airing before elections, lying about critical events, giving the current ... person in office a free pass, and THEN if this is not disgusting enough - PUT TOGETHER A PACKAGE TO TEACH CHILDREN LIES... OK, you got that - teaching children this "history" is so contrary to what I was brought up believing that I am willing to give up Lost and Grey's Anatomy, etc. I just want our country and our rights back.

It was good

[s_gman2002 · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

Having watched this docudrama, I can safely say that it was well produced, with good moments of dramatic tension and by-and-large the acting was top-notch. However, despite the excellent production standards there appears to be a flame war going on with people complaining about anti-Clinton bias while other contend that these people were silent with Mike Moore. Let me remind both sides that this docudrama portrays both sides as failing but that because Clinton was in power over a full eight years obviously there would be a greater focus on that period.

But looking away from the political issue, what the production showed was that those who operated in defending the United States each were complex characters. Some wanted immediate action while others wanted more time, looking at the legal issues while there were other characters (Clinton, Albright) who looked at the wider issues in play. This accurately reflects, in my opinion, the different nature of people in our world and it reflects accurately the different level of priority given to terrorism but both the Clinton and Bush Administrations over the period from 1993 to September 11 2001.

A rugged 'Path' airs--deserving more than political interest

[jqrogers · 10/10 · 10 September 2006]

The first night ended (20 minutes?) early, and appeared to have some ragged edges from the last minute appeasement edits. Still it gave an ominous chill--particularly for a small-screen viewing.

The Path's story was taught despite the long historical time-line and extensive list of players in the actual events. Political junkies--you could not tell any story this complicated without combining characters and events. The movie would have been over 10 years long.

The lead characters, O'Neill and Kirk (CIA operative) kept me emotionally charged; aptly venting my frustration in their roles. It made the audience's small rewards, catching the bomb maker and arresting the blind sheik, more authentic and satisfying. With terrorists portrayed so personally and tangibly, their ultimate deeds take on a new sense of betrayal--to their religion, to their world.

Some may not prefer the hand-held feel of the camera work. But I felt it gave an jarring look that suited the content; especially when juxtaposed with wide crowd scenes in Kenya, Afghanistan and other distant locales. The world music accents and Islamic prayer calls provided lyrical moments that let the tension ebb for an instant...only to return with throbbing drums and stick-and-move camera viewpoints of a world in disarray.

You may try to call this film a political mudfest, but you shouldn't deny the artistry. And why draw conclusions until you see the handling of Bush's administration? Ultimately I believe many will be rallied to see this for the controversy, but instead will leave with a sobered moment of remembrance and a vivid look at the gaping holes in our national defense.

What ever happened to "If you don't like it, don't watch it"?

[darwendarwen · 8 September 2006]

The ruckus raised by Clinton supporters and leftists over this movie has been surprising.

In a previous comment, IMDb user "Ed" wrote "Regardless of ones political leanings, I think it is despicable for 9/11 to be fictionalized and history rewritten simply for political gain." I'd ask Ed a number of questions: How does broadcasting a movie qualify as rewriting history? In your opinion, do movies such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," for instance, qualify as rewriting history? Have you seen this TV movie, read the script, read a treatment of the script, or had any access to this material prior to the movie's upcoming broadcast? For years, the American left has been sympathetic to any artistic expression that offends conservatives or religious people. Now there's a movie that, according to some, might portray their Golden Boy, Clinton, in a less than amorous light. None of us have seen the movie yet, but at the mere suggestion, the left is up in arms.

I'd suggest that those on the left take the same advice they've given others for years: "If you don't like the content, don't watch the movie." I'd also suggest that you'd be ahead to see the film before you decide if you like it, if it's factual, etc. Meanwhile, there are many people who are interested in seeing the film, who remember the historical events (pre and post 9/11) that it proposes to portray, and who are capable of checking other resources and deciding for ourselves if the movie is accurate or not.

Any movie about this subject matter is going to encourage debate. I'd ask those on the left who don't want this movie shown to consider the transparency of their actions. Why is the prospect of debate so threatening? Why do you want the debate strangled before it starts? Are you afraid that it's a debate you can't win?

Ed writes: " But to completely falsify information, and then LIE about falsifying it, especially about an event still so painful to many people, is just way below acceptable." I'd like the chance to see the film and decide for myself if that's the case, Ed. Why do you find that prospect so threatening?

Honestly, Ed, the idea that Hollywood (of all places) would really do anything to tarnish the legacy of their favorite President is, at best, amusing.

Very good docudrama/docufiction

[jbarta · 7/10 · 11 September 2006]

All the political bickering over this movie is little more than petty distraction. The film is largely an accurate portrayal of events preceding 9/11. The lesson to be learned is how a relative handful of determined radicals can strike such a deep wound into the most powerful country on the planet. Rather than bicker over details and the past, we should look to the future and work on ways to better deal with the threat and examine the causes of the threat. Certainly a movie worth watching.

Oddly, knowing how the movie will end takes away some of it's theatrical value. It's a taut political thriller... but we already know the ending and the good guys do NOT save the day.

A Good Lie is better than a Sad Truth When it Comes to Ratings

[jkepcot · 1/10 · 7 September 2006]

When you take something as horrific as 9/11 and you fictionalize it for "good" television, then you are a disgusting individual. How could anyone read this script and agree to be in this film. Whole sections of it never happened, never took place, whole conversations were just randomly made up to damn an administration that isn't even in power anymore. It takes a juvenile swipe at the Clinton administration like a spoiled brat kicks at a helpless puppy after he's been beaten up by a bully. What is really disturbing is that some people are going to watch this and they're going to think this is the way things really happened. Some people are so focused on hating Clinton and his administration that they'll point to this and all they'll say is, "See, it is his fault." They don't care about what the truth is, or the fact that many facets of the administration failed us in this crises.

What's really sad is that Disney thought this whole thing was a good idea, and now we truly see just how much they care about ethics and the lives of 3,000 poor souls. They care about politics and ratings more than feelings and lost lives. What the hell though, as long as they make money then a good lie is better than a sad truth.

Gritty, powerful television

[info-3125 · 10/10 · 12 September 2006]

As someone who finds most television incredibly boring, I have to say I was completely gripped by this mini-series, perhaps because it was so unlike what you normally get on the tube. I loved the gritty film-making style, and I thought the casting and performances were great. David L. Cunningham is not a well known name right now, but that should change after this mini-series. Too bad he'll probably go on to direct features, because we could use more guys like him on the small screen.

In terms of all the political flak this series has attracted, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Yeah, the show throws a few barbs Clinton's way, but every show has some point of view. If the Democrats don't like it, they can always respond to the truth as they see it.

Congrats to ABC on having the guts to show this in spite of all the threats and criticism they received.

A good film, too bad its been so vilified

[emily-brunjes · 7/10 · 14 September 2006]

I enjoyed the Path to 9/11. It was a noble effort to tell the story of the weaknesses U.S. intelligence and defense efforts leading up to 9/11. I rated it a 7 because it was good story telling and yet there were certain aspects of the film that made it hard to watch. In my opinion there was a little too much shaky hand-held shots. Mumbled dialog that was hard to follow also bothered me.

My favorite scene depicted an attack on the Northern Alliance by al Qaeda. The build up to the attack was very suspenseful. Since I did not already know the outcome, I kept wondering whether or not these guys were really terrorists.

I fear that all the negative press will lead you to believe that it is an entirely politicized film. It is not. My advice, pay attention to the specific points of inaccuracy that the critics bring up. These are helpful. Otherwise, view it for yourself and compare it to the 9/11 Commission report. I have no doubt that certain scenes were not perfect representation of history, but after viewing and reading the criticism I have concluded that though not completely factual, the film does give an accurate impression of the failures leading up the attack.

Many inaccuracies apparently in this politically motivated fiction

[jarnocan · 1/10 · 9 September 2006]

Please care about the truth! We have a right and need to be told the truth concerning our democracy the PNAC and Bush administration.

According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997/ " 54% " think our gov. was involved ? ! For reasons why please visit;

Why Doubt 9/11? http://www.st911.org/

This politically motivated "docudrama" ABC / Disney plan to air next week about was actually written by a Republican operative, based in part on a book by a former ABC reporter who is currently a member of the Bush administration. They're presenting it as factual, but an FBI agent quit the project saying "they were making things up." There was going to be a Scholastic study guide given to high schools which also contained many outright lies, such as that Iraq was involved with the 911 attack and possessed WMDs, but it has been canceled. How dare they even consider teaching our children LIES, and they would have if they got away with it.

I just sent them a message through TrueMajority. There's only a day or so left, though. Check it out: http://action.truemajority.org/campaign/dontdistort911 Thanks!

Wonderful display of blending entertainment and factual history

[chris_s_elam · 10/10 · 22 August 2007]

The film makers use of the 9/11 commission report to compile a movie that is so entertaining and educational is simply magnificent. The fact that this film is based on such a boring and hard to read report is a tribute to the makers abilities. To the liberal conspiracy theorist, that thinks President Bush was somehow involved in the tragic events of 9/11, this is truly a bust. The liberal mind set is to ignore facts when they are presented to refute their ideas, no-matter how crazy they might be. As an American that lets the facts do the talking, this film exposes the ineptitude of the U.S. Government to successfully combat terrorism during the Clinton years. I can't wait for this to come out on DVD!!!

Not as bad as some would accuse, but still too inaccurate

[cliff-19 · 6/10 · 12 September 2006]

First, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a confirmed Bush-basher who is ashamed that this war criminal was re-elected, etc etc. Second, I have long been fascinated by the whole issue, long before 9/11, so I am (if I can boast), quite well informed.

So in sum, I agree that this movie went well past dramatic license into some historical revisionism. The serious ones to me are NOT the ones everyone is complaining about.

The most serious one is that there was no mention at all of the "Wag the Dog" context of the debate. When Clinton hit the drug factory in Sudan, he was excoriated by the rabid Right for pulling a "Wag the Dog" stunt. When any of the Clinton people objected to an action, there were very good strategic reasons for it, and those reasons were highlighted or exaggerated by the "Wag the Dog" issue.

Second is that Richard Clarke was one of the people voting with the Clinton team on some of those "stand down" orders. It was Michael Scheuer (who is not in this movie at all, is he?) who had the reputation of pushing the "get Bin Laden at any cost" line, not Clarke.

Third, Bin Laden's fatwa is only mentioned as existing. His six points of accusation are never mentioned. Why would America become such an enemy? By not articulating the Al-Qaeda side, we demonize our enemy, to our detriment.

Dramatic license abounds, but I was not bothered by two key ones: a. It is widely known that no CIA agents OR assets ever saw Bin Laden from a hillside, as was OFTEN depicted. The best shot we had (the falcon hunt) isn't here, and he wasn't seen in the Predator for our best shot! b. Ahmed Shah Massoud was made into a noble hero. While I sympathize with him, it should be pointed out that he also brutalized his rivals in the Northern Alliance. We also never learn why he was held in such high regard, namely, that he innovated guerrilla warfare dramatically during the anti-Soviet war and succeeded where few others were able.

Lukewarm movie, passes fiction for fact

[jgilles-1 · 2/10 · 11 September 2006]

And I find it funny that someone posting to this site missed the point of the movie, according to a Republican representative on the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean, who says, "If people blame Bill Clinton after seeing this, then the miniseries has failed" (see CNN article in Entertainment section). And the statement that "I for one agree that there should be more truth?" Then you shouldn't be talking about this movie, which clearly states that it "contains fictionalized scenes," like the one in which a CIA team was all set to kill Bin Laden. From all official accounts, this never actually happened. And if we can't write letters to Disney about its airing a movie that tries to pass off fiction as fact, then whose free speech is being limited? And finally, Clinton's primary fault was a personal matter of fidelity to his wife, and because of the public spotlight that overshadows anything that might have been called his "legacy." Now our current president is apparently faithful to his wife. Does that make him a better president? You tell me.

As for the movie, I thought that parts of it were hard to follow. The scenes edited at the last moment were fairly obvious. IMHO, it's not worth the $30 million Disney (or whoever) spent on it. Definitely no blockbuster.

I'll probably watch the second half, but I think it's shameful how it tries to pass fiction for fact, even with the disclaimers. And with it being aired on Sunday without commercial interruption and then interrupted on Monday night only by Bush's address... seems like SOMEONE has an agenda. Even the lead actor, Harvey Keitel, apparently has issues with the movie.