ABC Airing Inaccurate 9-11 Docu-Drama [Archive]

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 08:58 AM

I'm surprised to see this hasn't come up here yet.

9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/us/06path.html?_r=1&ex=1157860800&en=075475434112c52f&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin)

By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: September 6, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 — Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film’s source material.

The six-hour miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” is to be shown on ABC on Sunday and Monday. The network has been advertising the program as a “historic broadcast” that uses the commission’s report on the 2001 attacks as its “primary foundation.”

On Tuesday, several liberal blogs were questioning whether ABC’s version was overly critical of the Clinton administration while letting the Bush administration off easy.

In particular, some critics — including Richard A. Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar — questioned a scene that depicts several American military officers on the ground in Afghanistan. In it, the officers, working with leaders of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group, move in to capture Osama bin Laden, only to allow him to escape after the mission is canceled by Clinton officials in Washington.

In a posting on ThinkProgress.org, and in a phone interview, Mr. Clarke said no military personnel or C.I.A. agents were ever in position to capture Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan, nor did the leader of the Northern Alliance get that near to his camp.

“It didn’t happen,” Mr. Clarke said. “There were no troops in Afghanistan about to snatch bin Laden. There were no C.I.A. personnel about to snatch bin Laden. It’s utterly invented.”

skraus75

09-08-2006, 09:17 AM

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 10:03 AM

I heard about this on the Today Show this morning. There is some belief they might make some editing changes. I'm curious to see what happens now and if the conservative press will latch on to this as evidence of their side's good deeds (not to say the liberal press wouldn't do the same thing if it favored their guy).

Actually to me it's an example of just how conservative the media is right now. If ABC, a news station, thought they could put on a 5 hour right-wing retelling of 9/11, that's very frightening to me. The idea of airing this on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 makes me sick.

jessesgirl

09-08-2006, 10:10 AM

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 10:12 AM

diam124

09-08-2006, 10:13 AM

I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't there a situation where the CIA or someone had Bin Laden in their sights in the late 90's and were told to not do anything about it? I can't remember the exact situation.

I agree that it is wrong to air a factually incorrect movie about the events leading up to 9/11, but I don't disagree with the sentiment that the Clinton administration could have done more to try and stop Al Qaeda and may have had opportunities to do so.

It is interesting though to me that this is coming from the mainstream media. It wasn't that long ago that NBC (I think) wanted to air the Reagan docudrama.

jnettie

09-08-2006, 10:14 AM

I saw something about this the other day, I think on MSNBC. It was an interview with a member of the 9/11 Commission. He was rather pissed because he said that ABC was claiming that the show is based on the Commission report, yet he says it was not at all. He was able to see the first half and was royally pissed about it.

Also, from what I understand, the movie basicly blames the Clinton Administration for everything, but only consulted conservatives about the script. No Clinton Admin. people were involved, and were told no when they asked to be.

It smacks of propiganda to me. Aweful. And people will be pointing to this movie as "truth". :rolleyes: I can see the damn email forwards from my conservative family members now: "Watch the miniseries the librals don't want you to see!"

jnettie

09-08-2006, 10:19 AM

If you think that's bad, you need to read how CNN is going to be airing all the news coverage the day the planes hit, in real time, all day next week.

Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Somehow reporting the actual facts - like showing the planes hit, replaying the timeline - doesn't bother me. Doing it all day seems a bit odd though. This docudrama makes me angry because I think some people will think it's the truth.

I think it's in poor taste. I wouldn't have a problem as a documentary or a news annalysis, but in real time on the anniversary? That's just too painful for many and, well, just for shock value IMO.

I may be remembering this wrong, but wasn't there a situation where the CIA or someone had Bin Laden in their sights in the late 90's and were told to not do anything about it? I can't remember the exact situation.

I'd be interested to find out more about this. From my understanding, Bin Laden was #1 on the list of bad guys (for lack of a better word) during the Clinton Admin. I'd be suprised if this were true, though.

jessesgirl

09-08-2006, 10:24 AM

Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about that. Somehow reporting the actual facts - like showing the planes hit, replaying the timeline - doesn't bother me. Doing it all day seems a bit odd though. This docudrama makes me angry because I think some people will think it's the truth.

It all bothers me. What's done is done. Even if there was one sole person responsible, it wouldn't bring back those lost; I wonder if it would even bring closure. I doubt it.

It's just opening old wounds.

skraus75

09-08-2006, 10:37 AM

Actually to me it's an example of just how conservative the media is right now. If ABC, a news station, thought they could put on a 5 hour right-wing retelling of 9/11, that's very frightening to me. The idea of airing this on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 makes me sick.
I agree the press is a lot more conservative than they once were. However, I wouldn't call them conservative by any means. I think some news outlets think in order to get the story they need to curry favor with the Bush administration (a fact I would actually believe to be true but I'm not a Bushie by far so I might be biased). Do we know who was the producer of this docu-drama?

diam124

09-08-2006, 10:40 AM

I’m not sure if this is the plan I was thinking about or not (I'm thinking not because the one I'm thinking of was a spotting of a caravan from the air), but this is from the 9/11 Commission’s Report: (I did remove some paragraphs dealing with details of the plan and the approval process to make it shorter). I agree this is totally not the same thing as what the docudrama says, but it's the overall idea that there was a plan and that plan was cancelled.

The CIA Develops a Capture Plan
The capture plan focused on a nighttime raid on Tarnak Farms. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Ladin’s wives and the one where Bin Ladin himself was most likely to sleep.Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid.They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997.

By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come
back to the White House to seek formal approval. Tenet apparently walked
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger through the basic plan on February 13.
One group of tribals would subdue the guards, enter Tarnak Farms stealthily,
grab Bin Ladin, take him to a desert site outside Kandahar, and turn him over
to a second group.This second group of tribals would take him to a desert landing zone already tested in the 1997 Kansi capture. From there, a CIA plane would take him to New York, an Arab capital, or wherever he was to be
arraigned. Briefing papers prepared by the Counterterrorist Center acknowledgedthat hitches might develop. People might be killed, and Bin Ladin’s supporters might retaliate,perhaps taking U.S. citizens in Kandahar hostage.But the briefing papers also noted that there was risk in not acting. “Sooner or later,” they said, “Bin Ladin will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD [weapons of mass destruction].”

The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March, and
they again briefed the CSG. Clarke wrote Berger on March 7 that he saw the
operation as “somewhat embryonic” and the CIA as “months away from doing
anything.”

“Mike” thought the capture plan was “the perfect operation.” It required
minimum infrastructure.The plan had now been modified so that the tribals
would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him
over to the United States—thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight.“Mike” trusted the information from the Afghan network;
it had been corroborated by other means, he told us.The lead CIA officer in
the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to
CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning “almost as professional and
detailed . . . as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element.”
He and the other officers who had worked through the plan with the tribals
judged it “about as good as it can be.” (By that, Schroen explained, he meant
Military officers reviewed the capture plan and, according to “Mike,”
“found no showstoppers.”… No one in the Pentagon, so far as we
know, advised the CIA or the White House not to proceed.23
In Washington, Berger expressed doubt about the dependability of the tribals.
In his meeting with Tenet, Berger focused most, however, on the question
of what was to be done with Bin Ladin if he were actually captured. He worried
that the hard evidence against Bin Ladin was still skimpy and that there
was a danger of snatching him and bringing him to the United States only to
see him acquitted. CONTINUED

diam124

09-08-2006, 10:41 AM

Part II -
From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation,
spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region.The
FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center
planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week,
giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Ladin to be brought out of
Afghanistan no later than July 23.27
On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with
Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin
Ladin. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Ladin out of
Afghanistan.28 A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide
whether the operation should go ahead.
The principals did not meet. On May 29, “Jeff ” informed “Mike” that he
had just met with Tenet, Pavitt, and the chief of the Directorate’s Near Eastern
Division.The decision was made not to go ahead with the operation…
Impressions vary as to who actually decided not to proceed with the operation.
Clarke told us that the CSG saw the plan as flawed.He was said to have
described it to a colleague on the NSC staff as “half-assed” and predicted that
the principals would not approve it. “Jeff ” thought the decision had been
made at the cabinet level. Pavitt thought that it was Berger’s doing, though
perhaps on Tenet’s advice.Tenet told us that given the recommendation of
his chief operations officers, he alone had decided to “turn off ” the operation.
He had simply informed Berger, who had not pushed back. Berger’s recollection
was similar. He said the plan was never presented to the White
House for a decision…Before it was canceled, Schroen described it as the “best plan we are going to come up with
to capture [Bin Ladin] while he is in Afghanistan and bring him to justice.”31
No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and
preparation.The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Ladin’s
security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.

PG-rated

09-08-2006, 10:54 AM

Well, that account is a far cry from having U.S. operatives in place and ready to seize Bin Laden before being called off.

You also have to remember the political climate at the time. Clinton got essentially zero public support every time he approved any military operation, and he was accused repeatedly of "Wag the Dog" style activities. If this mission had failed and Americans had been killed as a result, there would've been huge political repercussions. I do believe the administration could've done more, but there was really no political will for anything that would put Americans in harm's way.

diam124

09-08-2006, 10:59 AM

Well, that account is a far cry from having U.S. operatives in place and ready to seize Bin Laden before being called off.

Oh I agree...but in retrospect it sounds like there were opportunities.

Again, I'm not saying the docudrama is correct in having scenes that portray something that didn't occur in a story as important as this, but I think it's just as important to acknowledge that there were opportunities to do more.

jnettie

09-08-2006, 11:13 AM

Thanks for posting that diam124.

I guess, it's one thing to change events for drama or whatever, but from what I understand, this movie makes 9/11 all Clinton's fault, placing no blame on Bush at all. We all know that ain't true. Certainly, I'd belive that Clinton admin could have done more, but it still happened under Bush's watch.

ETA...Here's where I *think* the video about the movie I saw on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC. Of course, I can't watch it to know for sure because my Mac OS is not at all compatible with their website.

Countdown (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/)

Under the picture of Paris Hilton, with the heading "More from Countdown" click "9/11: Fact vs. Fiction". Hopefully, this takes you to the 9/11 commission guy I saw. If not, please post!

diam124

09-08-2006, 11:28 AM

This was the incident I was thinking of (and this is the first time I heard they were able to confirm it was not Bin Ladin in the caravan). From the Washington Post in 2001:

"Two years ago, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet phoned the White House. The agency had a lead, he said, on Osama bin Laden.

National security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger canvassed the Small Group, as they had come to call themselves, of Cabinet-rank decision-makers on the most sensitive terrorist matters. President Bill Clinton gave the go-ahead to begin preparations for cruise missiles to launch.

Amid the urgent engagement of the White House came an unwelcome status call from U.S. Central Command. One of two submarines designated to fire the missiles, if so ordered, had left its Arabian Sea cruising grounds. "Well, get it back in the box!" urged a duty officer, according to a person who was present.

Clinton, said people familiar with the episode, waited impatiently as the CIA searched for confirmation. Finally, Tenet called back. The camp was not bin Laden's, he said. It was a falconing expedition of a wealthy sheik from the United Arab Emirates -- and bin Laden had never been part of it."

If anyone wants to read the full article, which is interesting, here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18&notFound=true

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 11:38 AM

I think it's in poor taste. I wouldn't have a problem as a documentary or a news annalysis, but in real time on the anniversary? That's just too painful for many and, well, just for shock value IMO.

That could be. I guess it bothers me too, just not nearly as much as presenting partisan spin as fact. The people who were killed on 9/11 shouldn't have their memories sullied by being used by conservatives in propaganda being sold as fact.

Here is the producer of the docu-drama:

Chris Nowrasteh

From ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/nowrasteh-conservative-activist/)

From IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0637493/bio)

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 12:12 PM

Here are some petitions for ABC to either cancel the airing on 9/11, air a disclaimer that the work is fiction-based-on-facts or edit the untrue information out of the docudrama:

Rep. Louise Slaughter (http://votelouise.com/page/petition/ComeCleanABC)

Working for Change (http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=21317&afccode=n69hdl)

iPetitions (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/BoycottDisney/index.html)

ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc)

Sophia

09-08-2006, 12:15 PM

ejs

09-08-2006, 12:23 PM

I think the title of this thread is fairly inflammatory. While there are people who believe the content is inaccurate, there are also many who feel it is correct.

Sophia

09-08-2006, 12:26 PM

Here is another petition:

MoveOn (MoveOnhttp://pol.moveon.org/abcdoc?id=8709-5622324-jH90G5yczOeht_25LUXn9g&t=4)

jnettie

09-08-2006, 12:27 PM

The coverage is going to be on CNN Pipeline (online), not on TV. They currently have this banner up on the website:

Ah, ok, that's not so bad. I'd hate to be channel surfing and just come across it, whereas, online, you have to make an effort to go see it. That's fine, IMO.

kedzieb

09-08-2006, 12:31 PM

I think the title of this thread is fairly inflammatory. While there are people who believe the content is inaccurate, there are also many who feel it is correct.

Actually, that's not true. There may be people who speculate that's how things happened, the parts of the movie that are in dispute are purely from the imagination of the filmmakers. They claim to be based on the 9/11 commission's findings but the commission members, and the documents they wrote, contradict them. The filmmakers themselves don't claim that everything is factual and that it is not a documentary.

I do think some people WANT to believe the content is true though. And they may feel it is correct. But they are wrong.

lawyerlee

09-08-2006, 02:57 PM

They claim to be based on the 9/11 commission's findings but the commission members, and the documents they wrote, contradict them. The filmmakers themselves don't claim that everything is factual and that it is not a documentary.
ITA. It would be nice if there was a real question as to whether the program was inaccurate, but, sadly, it just is. It is misleading to say the source of information is the 9/11 Commission when the content contradicts the Commission's findings. It is also misleading to call this a documentary if any part of the content is traceable only to the imagination of a writer. It is fine to put a slant on a documentary (though I would argue it is important to be open and honest that you've done so), but not okay to fudge facts or insert fiction.

ginadc

09-09-2006, 07:35 AM

Well, now this explains a lot about the slant of the film:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html

Yes, Blumenthal is a liberal, but the information in the article about the background of those involved in the film is pretty checkable, so it's not like he's making this stuff up.

nylons73

09-09-2006, 12:06 PM

I think the title of this thread is fairly inflammatory. While there are people who believe the content is inaccurate, there are also many who feel it is correct.

Who feels it is correct? Even the actor Harvey Keitel who ACTS in the movie said that when he got the script, he thought that many of the scenes had been 'dramatized' too much. He was doubting the validity of many of the scenes throughout filming. He is now doubting the content even more and is publically doing so. That's a first as far as I am concerned.

Republicans, Democrats, 9/11 Commission folks, survivors families, almost everybody has come out and said that this "docu-drama" is not really 'docu' and more like 'all drama.' You'll have to look hard to find anyone at this point who is calling it 'correct.' Even the producers of the film are editing it as we speak to correct the many inaccuracies.

paulinaaa

09-09-2006, 02:20 PM

I get my news from Keith Olberman, so what I've seen are interviews from a former consultant who said the writers refused to change things on even the way the FBI worked, despite the fact that the guy was a former agent that was hired to make those assertions. I've also heard that Richard Clark, who is portrayed has ranted about the innacurracies in the film. I also saw the interview with the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission talking about how innacurate the first part was, which he'd seen. Also, last night on Countdown, they reported that despite claims to the contrary, the filmmakers were closely tied to an Uber-Conservative group that wants to remake Hollywood in "their image", which I imagine involes colored burkas.

kris97

09-10-2006, 09:15 AM

I read yesterday that Bush spoke out against the movie, saying that it should not imply that the Clinton administration didn't take the terrorist threat seriously (or something like that). Did anyone see this? My computer's too slow to post links here, or I'd try to find them.

jnettie

09-10-2006, 02:20 PM

I saw an article about this in the NY Post, of all places - Bush criticizing the docu-drama. Tony Snow basicly said that it does no good to point fingers or something to that effect.

I can't seem to find an online article about this though, either. Hmf.

philnikki

09-11-2006, 07:06 AM

You know, when all of this crap was going down with the Micheal Moore movie, did you see Bush crying out for it not to air? No! He certainly disagreed with it, and I remember his people saying it was inaccurate, yada yada, but he never proposed taking it out of movie theaters and boycotting it! I find it interesting that its only called "propoganda" when it might potentially point the finger at someone in the Democratic party for being at fault. I am sorry, but the fact remains that Bin Laden did what he did during the Clinton Administration, and there were opportunities that potentially could have prevented 9/11 from happening. I am not *blaming* anybody, but to claim that ABC shouldn't air it because it might put egg on someone's face, is ridiculous! If it took a liberal slant, most pp's would be heralding it as the "truth". It seems you only want free speech when it suits you!

Emilie

09-11-2006, 07:24 AM

I find it interesting that its only called "propoganda" when it might potentially point the finger at someone in the Democratic party for being at fault.

Didn’t CBS pull the Reagan docudrama because of conservative pressure?

jennylou

09-11-2006, 07:28 AM

philnikki

09-11-2006, 07:34 AM

Oh, and one the scene in question that everyone is so upset about being overdramatized, here is a little FYI:

Michael Scheuer is the individual regularly referred to in the 9/11 Commission report as "Mike", the person who is depicted as taking the call from Sandy Berger and ordered to stop the operation. He's a 22-year veteran of the CIA who used to head up "Alec Station," the counter terrorist center's Osama bin Laden unit. He is also a VERY outspokenly anti-Bush, so we aren't talking about a partisan hack here.

Anyway - he recently wrote on Op-Ed piece in the Washington Times about the ABC docu drama:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060704-110004-4280r.htm

After all of the political rumblings lately regarding the docu drama, he had this to say about the "scene" that the Clinton adminsitration and Madeline Albright say was totally fabricated:

"Regarding the scene, it was never clear to my officers or myself who canceled the operation." "What I don't think people know, however, is that the Agency had thoroughly reviewed the plan and had approved its execution at the highest level -- that is, at the level of DCI Tenet and his immediate subordinates. My officers and I were told that the plan had been sent to Clarke and the NSC for approval. The next thing we knew, the Chief of CT at CIA told us that the plan had been canceled because civilians might get killed, there was not a hundred percent chance that we would get bin Laden, and that if bin Laden was killed in the capture effort the CIA might get accused of assassination. The implication to us at the time was that the NSC canceled the operation, but Tenet later claimed he did it himself. I don't know what the full truth is on this issue. Interestingly, after our east Africa embassies were bombed on 7 August 98, Clarke ordered us to immediately revive the capture plan, but of course by then the chance had been well and truly lost."

The 9/11 Commission report says, quote, "'Mike' thought the capture plan was 'the perfect operation.' It required minimum infrastructure. The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Ladin in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States -- thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. 'Mike' trusted the information from the Afghan network; it had been corroborated by other means, he told us. The lead CIA officer in the field, Gary Schroen, also had confidence in the tribals. In a May 6 cable to CIA headquarters, he pronounced their planning 'almost as professional and detailed...as would be done by any U.S. military special operations element.'"

philnikki

09-11-2006, 07:40 AM

jennylou - I disagree. Please see my post after yours. We cross posted.

Emilie See this article http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA334711.html

CBS pulled the plug because of widespread public criticism of a docu drama depicting a VERY popular president who had recently died of Alzhiemers in a negative light. It was felt that it would not receive viewership and hit them in the pocketbook. I will agree with you that Republicans thought that the docu drama was in poor taste, and were upset about it, but you did not see Republicans openly threatening CBS's operating license, like we did recently see with the Democrats with respect to the 911 drama on ABC:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200609/POL20060908b.html

Emilie

09-11-2006, 07:53 AM

But the RNC did get involved in the Reagan movie. Probably with more furor than over the 9/11 movie.

San Jose Mercury News, "CBS Pulls 'The Reagans'"
November 5
by Charlie McCollum

...The film was attacked on right-wing radio talk shows across the country. The Republican National Committee asked CBS to screen the film for a team of historians, with GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie suggesting the network run a “crawl” reminding the audience “that this is not a film that is supposed to be historically accurate.”

Obviously, it was pulled instead.

Here is a site that lists the many ways the right went after that movie: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20031108.asp

FYI - that site is a hard core right wing site.

philnikki

09-11-2006, 08:05 AM

Emilie - The conservative slant of the site is irrelevant. The sources that are quoted are from CBS:

CBS officials, however, reject assertions that political considerations played any role in the decision to chuck the series. "This decision is based solely on our reaction to seeing the final film, not the controversy that erupted around a draft of the script," said their prepared statement. "It does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS."

CBS officials say they received virtually no inquiries from government officials about the program. FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican appointed by President Bush, said contacting the net over the show is "absolutely not" something he would have considered. "All I did was listen to the argument."

There certainly were many conservative groups outraged over the movie! They have every right to be! And so do Democrats over this one. What I am saying is what is not cool is the reaction from the White House to pull it. Find me a letter from The White House (read: president or member's of Congress) threatening CBS with their license, and I will agree that you are correct, however, you won't find such a letter.

diam124

09-11-2006, 08:56 AM

No that this really matters, but the Reagan docudrama did eventually air on Showtime.

kedzieb

09-11-2006, 10:34 AM

The Reagan docu-drama is an interesting comparison - but I can't remember if people thought it was inaccurate or just didn't want it aired? I do think there's a difference there.

Here's an article from ABC (the station would aired it) today:

What's Fact, What's Fiction in 'The Path to 9/11'? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2418613&page=1)
ABC Entertainment Edits Some Scenes, but Clinton Staffers Still Disappointed

Sept. 11, 2006 — "The Path to 9/11," ABC Entertainment's two-part miniseries about the events leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, has been in the headlines for days because of fictionalized scenes that portray members of the Clinton administration obstructing attempts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

Because of the criticism, led by President Clinton, ABC Entertainment said it was editing some of the scenes. So what aired, and what was fact and what was fiction?

The first — and most controversial — part of "The Path to 9/11" aired Sunday night.

John Lehman, a Republican 9/11 commissioner, watched it and said the episode portrayed events fairly.

"It very well portrayed the events in a way that people can understand them without doing violence to the facts," he said.

Close to Catching Osama bin Laden?
Clinton and many Democrats thought otherwise.

A Clinton spokesman said, "ABC's claims of edits notwithstanding, the scenes ABC put on its air [Sunday] night are completely false and directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. ABC regrettably decided not to tell the truth [Sunday] night and instead chose entertainment over the facts."

Three times during Sunday's episode, ABC Entertainment ran disclaimers that it contained "fictionalized scenes" for "dramatic and narrative purposes."

One scene, edited by ABC, shows Clinton's National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refusing to give the order to take bin Laden out, something contradicted by Berger and the 9/11 Commission.

Richard Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commission, says "that never happened."

More at the link. Anyone end up watching this propaganda?

philnikki

09-11-2006, 10:50 AM

kedzieb

09-11-2006, 10:58 AM

I want to know when we decided to accept the 9/11 Commission report, as the be all end all totally factual representation of what led up to 9/11?

Not only that, but are Democrats really THAT threatened with the election and their position on National Security that they stoop so low as to censor the path to 9/11? Wow. Like I said before, freedom of speech is only useful as a political means to and an end. If it doesn't help you, you reach out and censor it.

And I love that all of this "its a big fat lie" garbage is coming from Democrats, and Clinton himself on the eve of an election. That's about as transparent as it gets! It's not like Clinton is the face of all that is honest here. And I also love that somehow, this has all become "about Clinton" and the Democrats. The real enemy here is the terroritst jihadists that would love to see us all dead. But of course, in an election year, the Democrats want to spin it away from that and make themselves the "victims" here.

There still is no refutation of the comments made by "Mike". Guess then we all agree that there is more truth to the docu drama then anyone is willing to admit....but I digress.

I think you are missing the point we are making. It isn't that we are upset that something unflattering about Clinton is being aired. It is that despite people involved and the 9/11 commission members saying that their words & lives are being either distorted or completely misused, ABC still aired it.

It is not just about politics - anyone who wants the truth reported should be upset that this was allowed to air. To me, it's sullying the memory of those killed to turn what in other hands could have been a faithful recounting of the history into a politically-motivated drama.

philnikki

09-11-2006, 11:06 AM

msnicolea

09-11-2006, 11:13 AM

Yeah--I wonder whose fault 9-11 would have been if Gore were in office instead of Bush at the time? Methinks I know the answer to that one. :rolleyes:

diam124

09-11-2006, 11:16 AM

I watched the first hour or so. I don't think there was anything controversial about the part that I watched - it mainly focused on the 1993 bombing. I will say though that the first few minutes showed the early morning of 9/11 and the hijackers checking in for their flights. It was shown that several hijackers were flagged as flight risks when they checked in, but were not stopped or heavily searched. Their baggage was to be kept off the plane until they boarded (I think the major threat was believed at that time to be bombs in luggage like PanAm 103). Anyway, I'm not sure if those things really happened (and I will look for proof before I do believe it's true), but I found it interesting.

Also, I will say that at the beginning the movie was very clear that it was based partly on the 9/11 commission report, but also from other sources and, it very clearly stated that it was a dramatization and NOT a documentary.

I think the Clinton administration (and everyone else) has the right to be upset about the scenes from Afghanistan that deal with bin Laden and that there were never troops on the ground there and any other scenes that show something of that magnitude. However, I think that complaining that some exact conversations that took place in private didn't happen the way the movie shows them is, IMO, taking it a little far. Of course there are going to be parts that didn't happen exactly as they happened and conversations that aren't the exact words of the participants. I'm sure there are parts of the World Trade Center movie that didn't actually happen exactly the way the movie shows. KWIM? It also kind of annoys me that Harvey Keitel speaks out after all of the controversy and says that he had reservations about the movie. Didn't he see a script before he signed up to be in it?

philnikki

09-11-2006, 11:19 AM

No need for the eye rolling. Bush wasn't doing anything to avert the terrorist threat at that time either. I am not saying that 9/11 was anyone's *fault* (in fact, I voted for Gore, and for Kerry if you must know thankyouverymuch)

And how does that answer my question? Like I said, truth has nothing to do with it!

diam124

09-11-2006, 11:41 AM

I found the parts about the hijackers checking in in the 9/11 commission report. Sadly, it's true the way it was portrayed in the movie:

When he checked in for his flight to Boston,Atta was selected by a computerized prescreening system known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System), created to identify passengers who should be subject to special security measures. Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta’s selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta’s plans.

__________________________________________________ _____________

A couple of Shehhi’s colleagues were obviously unused to travel; according to the United ticket agent, they had trouble understanding the standard security questions, and she had to go over them slowly until they gave the routine, reassuring answers.

__________________________________________________ ______________

While Atta had been selected by CAPPS in Portland, three members of his hijacking team—Suqami,Wail al Shehri, and Waleed al Shehri—were selected
in Boston.Their selection affected only the handling of their checked bags, not
their screening at the checkpoint. All five men cleared the checkpoint and made their way to the gate for American 11.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, and Majed Moqed were flagged by
CAPPS.The Hazmi brothers were also selected for extra scrutiny by the airline’s customer service representative at the check-in counter. He did so
because one of the brothers did not have photo identification nor could he
understand English, and because the agent found both of the passengers to
be suspicious.The only consequence of their selection was that their checked
bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that they had boarded
the aircraft.12

__________________________________________________ _____________

When the local civil aviation security office of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) later investigated these security screening operations, the screeners recalled nothing out of the ordinary.They could not recall that any of the passengers they screened were CAPPS selectees.We asked a screening expert to review the videotape of the hand-wanding, and he found the quality of the screener’s work to have been “marginal at best.”The screener should have “resolved” what set off the alarm; and in the case of both Moqed and Hazmi, it was clear that he did not.

artist

09-11-2006, 02:27 PM

It's a complete crock-o-shit and I may even have to give up watching ABC's Desperate Housewives now.

If anyone in this country watches that crap and believes it they are completely stupid. I can blame Clinton for Kosovo. But W. was president when 9/11 happened. What happened to "the buck stops here"?

Nice move RIGHT before election day. What bullshit to use the tragedy of 9/11 for a political agenda.

Republicans have reached a whole new level of scumbag low.

artist

09-11-2006, 02:33 PM

I think what is happening is that the Clinton people and other Democrats are so afraid that people will actually start getting upset that their administration was ineffective in recognizing the terrorist threat, and they might carry that through to the election. *THAT* is why they are claiming that they have been "misrepresented". It has zero to do with getting to the "truth" and everything to do with political spin in their favor.

Um no. It's more like Bush and his little sheep are afraid people might realize that there is more to 9/11 then what the damned media tells us. Unanswered questions.

If anyone was ineffective, it would be our idiot cheif in theif W., the jerk who has more vacation time then the Socialist French, who was reading to 2nd graders at the time, who HAD plenty of warning about it all, much like he did with Katrina.

The Republican approach is to blame Clinton for absolutely anything and everything. Get over it people, he hasn't been the president since 2000! And Gore really SHOULD have been after that and maybe 9/11 COULD have been prevented by a president who takes the damned time to READ the newspaper by himself like a big boy!

Since 2000 the country has been run so incredibly poorly it's scary. He is such an effective leader. Tragedy after tragedy keeps occuring.

As my now deceased grandpa said about former VP Dan Quale, I say the same about W., "Maybe he would have made an okay Boy Scout leader instead."

ca_girl

09-11-2006, 03:09 PM

I didn't watch it. I figured it was the same kind of thing as Farenheit 9-11. They were both skewed by how the director wants it to look.

justHB

09-11-2006, 03:14 PM

Eh, nevermind. I had a whole post, but I don't feel like being too controversial today. Let's just say I disagree wholeheartedly with philnikki and her ardent devotion to GW and his cronies.

kedzieb

09-11-2006, 03:50 PM

I didn't watch it. I figured it was the same kind of thing as Farenheit 9-11. They were both skewed by how the director wants it to look.

Not really looking to get into a big debate here, but you do realize there's a difference between the 2 movies, right? One is broadcast on a national television network for free into everyone in America's homes with a TV. One you had to go out and pay for. One was a docudrama staging events as the writers believed they happened. One used source footage of people actually saying or doing the things the writer/director said they were.

I'm not exactly one to defend Michael Moore (mainly because personally I think the documentary format should be used to tell stories without the tellers involement and he REALLY likes to be in front of the camera), but when he says someone did something, people really can't refute its accuracy since he then shows them doing it.

I'm saddened that ABC bowed to far-right pressure and aired the first half of the garbage last night. If tonight's portion is as libelous and presumptuous as the first, I think Bush's people would have the same right as Clinton's to refute it. Somehow I doubt they will have to though.

pocket

09-11-2006, 04:54 PM

Well I watched - sort of, I was playing Civ at the time and it's very engrossing. but yeah, it wa pretty bad. Talk about your Republican historical revisionism! WTF, ABC? I don't really even understand why they are invested in that particular narrative. Is ABC a conservative organisation? It's so weird. I would have said no, they are just a big business. But clearly they have an agenda.

Asha

09-11-2006, 05:03 PM

I am sorry, but the fact remains that Bin Laden did what he did during the Clinton Administration, and there were opportunities that potentially could have prevented 9/11 from happening.

one can't point the blame at any one person, at any one point in time. there has been a cummulative effect of actions that could probably be traced back centuries ago that led us to where we are today.

LoveandLaw

09-11-2006, 06:38 PM

No, I see your point very clearly.

I am unwilling to accept what the people appointed to the 9/11 Commision are saying has been "misrepresented" is in fact accurate. I think that instead of letting something that is closer to the truth then they want to admit air, they instead censor it so that they are not left looking like they let 9/11 happen, even if that is what the "truth" is.

Whether you believe it to be accurate or not, it is the most comprehensive analysis of information concerning 9/11 and the events leading up to it. The fact is, the movie specifcally states that it is based on the 9/11 Commission Report. If they say they are basing it on the report, shouldn't it accurately reflect what is stated in the report? They should not make that claim otherwise.

What I have a problem with, and others may agree, is not so much the content but the timing of the docu-drama. 9/11 has become a sacred day. It is a day that thousands of people died, and even more lost family and friends. To air this politically motivated material on the eve and day of the anniversary of our nation's greatest tragedy - while the wounds for many are still fresh - is deplorable and disgusting. If they wanted to air it last month or next month or any other day, then so be it. But the timing is like rubbing salt in people's wounds. I don't believe that any political agenda should be advanced on 9/11 - whether Republican or Democrat. It should be a day of rememberance - not a day to kick up political support.

And as I said, I want to see where the Republican lean in this even is? Bush isn't even in the movie!

If that's true, I think your response answers your question. A movie about the path to 9/11 that doesn't include the sitting president, or the 9 months he was in office prior to the attacks??

philnikki

09-11-2006, 06:56 PM

Edited because I just shouldn't even respond to being called "stupid".

For the record, I can't stand GW. But apparently, if I go against the mainstream liberal mentality, I am the "enemy". I like to call it a free thinker, but then again, I am stupid, right?

diam124

09-11-2006, 07:04 PM

I don't believe that any political agenda should be advanced on 9/11 - whether Republican or Democrat. It should be a day of rememberance - not a day to kick up political support.

ITA.

Delta

09-11-2006, 11:11 PM

The only people who came out of this moving looking good are O'Neill and Masood. I'm glad they told Masood's story.

I would say that Richard Clarke comes out looking good but all I can picture him doing right now is asking for his Swingline stapler back.

The fuss that the Clinton people and the Dems in Congress made beforehand is pretty amusing after seeing the show. Paranoid much? This movie was about missed opportunities - and there were plenty in the 8 years of Clinton's Administration, as well as the short months of Bush's.

I also have to say that the Albright and Rice characters were straight out of Saturday Night Live. Painful to watch.

The 9/11 Report is sitting on my bookcase right behind me. I guess I'll bust it out and see how it compares.

It kind of makes me sick how there is still finger pointing and nitpicking about who did what when. Let's just learn from our mistakes and move forward.

wendalah

09-11-2006, 11:35 PM

I quite enjoyed the Blumenthal piece. Oh, horrors, there are Christians working in the film industry! And, in an industry notoriously full of fat egos regardless of sex, creed, or orientation, those crazy Christians are covertly trying to convey their opinion. (Snorting.)

Also, if all this shit is checkable via Google or IMDB, how on earth is it a "secretive" right-wing organization? And where is expressing your viewpoint in, again, an industry all about c*ckstroking an attempt to "discredit mainstream film and TV production"? The whole thing was hilarious.

(In booming voice) Hide your Everybody Loves Raymond, folks...the secretive troops of Christians are coming. *Ed's note: That goes for the music industry too, kids. No more 50 cent for all of you. Jars of Clay!!!!

Delta

09-11-2006, 11:47 PM

Wendy - I had the exact same thoughts about that piece! Pretty humorous.

I also have to say that I was a little icked about ABC marking this anniversary with a 'docudrama', but I did end up watching it. I probably would not have - I KNOW I would not have - watched it if it hadn't involved so much controversy beforehand. It was a little too...musicy/funky cinematography/MTVish though.

Asha

09-12-2006, 06:21 AM

it makes me sad that in all of this talk about who is to blame - i have not heard one mention of the religious extremists who have a doctrine of hate who made calculated and decisive decisions to murder thousands of innocent people.

diam124

09-12-2006, 06:51 AM

I didn't watch the ABC movie last night. Instead I watched "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero" on PBS. I'm sure it will be replayed at some point (I think it was actually filmed to coincide with the first anniversary of 9/11), but it was really interesting and really sad. I almost felt like I was at a funeral when I was watching it.

Here's a little blurb about it:

As the country prepares to commemorate the victims and heroes of Sept. 11, FRONTLINE returns to Ground Zero, both literally and metaphorically, and explores these fundamental spiritual questions. What was it we saw on Sept. 11? Was it the true face of evil? Was it the face of religion? And where, if one is a believer, was God? Indeed, if one is not a believer, did Sept. 11 make the idea of God that much more of an impossibility? Or was there something in the human response to the tragedy that suggested transcendence?

In "Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero," FRONTLINE producer Helen Whitney sets out to discover how the religious beliefs -- and unbelief -- of Americans have been challenged since the events of Sept. 11. Through interviews with priests, rabbis, and Islamic scholars, victims' families and World Trade Center survivors, writers and thinkers, atheists and agnostics, this two-hour documentary explores whether, and in what ways, Americans' spiritual lives may have changed on that day.

cr8zyforaf

09-12-2006, 07:40 AM

philnikki

09-12-2006, 07:50 AM

Asha I can't quote posts at work (silly IT people), but I *did* mention that very fact (post #39):

"And I also love that somehow, this has all become "about Clinton" and the Democrats. The real enemy here is the terroritst jihadists that would love to see us all dead. But of course, in an election year, the Democrats want to spin it away from that and make themselves the "victims" here. "

So yeah, I agree with you 1000%. It's not about *blame* or pointing fingers at anyone. But its the Clintonites, and the Democratic powers that be that made it about them, when the reality is that its about the terrorists who took 1000's of lives that day. And that is what it *should* be about. I think that at the end of the movie, you don't go to bed hating Clinton, you go bed hating the terrorists, which is the reason why I couldn't beleive so many people wanted it pulled off the air!

Asha

09-12-2006, 07:54 AM

philnikki - i didn't mean to specifically point you out, but more used your quote to show that you (general) can't really blame any one person. the thread seemed to be going in that direction, and also that no one mentioned the people who carried out these acts of violence.

philnikki

09-12-2006, 08:06 AM

Asha - Well, I was unclear in my point I guess. I was pointing out that Clinton and other Congressional Dems calling out this movie and having it pulled from the air and threatening CBS with their license was a bunch of BS. I didn't intend to come across as if I were *blaming* Clinton for it. I don't think there is anyone to *blame* but Osama and his jihadist friends. But they *did* miss opportunities to capture him. Hindsight is 20/20 and we all know that, but for them to want to whitewash it like it never happened was foolish, IMO. We need to learn from our mistakes, not cover them up because we might have made a mistake. Its forgivable to make mistakes, but what is unforgivable is to try and re-write history favorably for a political end. Like Isaid before, this isn't about Clinton, but he made it so. And apparently there were plenty of others who felt like they needed to defend the administration as well. The movie doesn't even *blame* them either. They call them out on missing opportunities, but I think many of us likely underestimated the terrorist threat at that time! What is important is that we recognize that it was mistake, and that we should be concerned about it now.

flygirl

09-12-2006, 09:52 AM

philinki, I understand what you're saying. You believe the Dems should have left this alone & just let it air. By making it a controversy, you believe they're being opportunists.

But it's not just Dems. As was mentioned earlier, even the White House commented on it. Bottome line: The movie is counterfactual. ABC could very easily have made a movie that acurately portrayed the mistakes made leading up to 9/11, and some Dems may have been upset, but it wouldn't have been controversial. Instead, ABC made it a controversy; not the Dems.

I'm not sure why you still think the movie is accurate.

jnettie

09-12-2006, 09:59 AM

one can't point the blame at any one person, at any one point in time. there has been a cummulative effect of actions that could probably be traced back centuries ago that led us to where we are today.

Asha - Well, I was unclear in my point I guess. I was pointing out that Clinton and other Congressional Dems calling out this movie and having it pulled from the air and threatening CBS with their license was a bunch of BS. I didn't intend to come across as if I were *blaming* Clinton for it. I don't think there is anyone to *blame* but Osama and his jihadist friends. But they *did* miss opportunities to capture him. Hindsight is 20/20 and we all know that, but for them to want to whitewash it like it never happened was foolish, IMO. We need to learn from our mistakes, not cover them up because we might have made a mistake. Its forgivable to make mistakes, but what is unforgivable is to try and re-write history favorably for a political end. Like Isaid before, this isn't about Clinton, but he made it so. And apparently there were plenty of others who felt like they needed to defend the administration as well. The movie doesn't even *blame* them either. They call them out on missing opportunities, but I think many of us likely underestimated the terrorist threat at that time! What is important is that we recognize that it was mistake, and that we should be concerned about it now.

*First, I didn't watch the show. I decided to watch The Simpsons season premiere instead.*

It seems that at this point, we all agree that pointing fingers solves little. Even Bush doesn't like finger pointing on this one. But understanding history does help.

I'll agree, Clinton (who I really love) certainly missed some oppertunities, but he would never have had too if Bush the Elder hadn't left Bin Laden high and dry. Let's not forget that Bin Laden was our "friend" when we were fighting the Russians in the Cold War. Regan and the CIA trained him and sold him his weapons. Then, when we didn't need him anymore, we abandoned him and his followers.

I'm looking at a newsweek article I found in an old issue right now. It's from Dec 26, 1983, and it talks about all the crap that is still going on now in the MidEast and Afganistan. Some people that were our friends then are our enemies now.

I also believe, as not only a liberal, but also a spiritual person, and someone who lived in NYC on Sept. 11, that it is a mistake to paint the terrorists as faceless crazy people who are just out to kill us all because the just hate us for no good reason. It is very easy to be angry at them, while very hard to see their side and actually understand why they do what they do. Aside from the political reasons, what makes a person board a plane that they will die in for their cause? I lived the fear, and it took me a long time to get to this point, but there is more to it than just jihadists who hate us. If we keep looking at them that way, and just keep lobing bombs at them, nothing will ever change.

As for the miniseries...for the record, I haven't seen any of the 9/11 movies. Not Flight 93, not World Trade Center, not this one. It's too early, we're still in the middle of it, and there's no way to make an objective film about what happened. We're too invested in it emotionally still.

ca_girl

09-12-2006, 11:29 AM

Not really looking to get into a big debate here, but you do realize there's a difference between the 2 movies, right? One is broadcast on a national television network for free into everyone in America's homes with a TV. One you had to go out and pay for. One was a docudrama staging events as the writers believed they happened. One used source footage of people actually saying or doing the things the writer/director said they were.

I'm not exactly one to defend Michael Moore (mainly because personally I think the documentary format should be used to tell stories without the tellers involement and he REALLY likes to be in front of the camera), but when he says someone did something, people really can't refute its accuracy since he then shows them doing it.

I get what you're saying about it being on tv vs. a movie you have to pay for (although I'm sure it'll air on cable someday). I just meant to reference it as they are both skewed & those watching it have to know that.

Michael Moore does skew what you see. He has (previously) asked one question to get the answer he wants & then when he shows it on his docu-drama, he doesn't show the question & answer - he shows a different question/statement with an answer taken out of context.

Well I watched - sort of, I was playing Civ at the time and it's very engrossing. but yeah, it wa pretty bad. Talk about your Republican historical revisionism! WTF, ABC? I don't really even understand why they are invested in that particular narrative. Is ABC a conservative organisation? It's so weird. I would have said no, they are just a big business. But clearly they have an agenda.

Aren't they connected to Disney, & isn't Disney fairly conservative? I figured that's where it was all rolled together (but I have no idea).

jennylou

09-12-2006, 11:46 AM

nylons73

09-12-2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by philnikki "The movie doesn't even *blame* them either. They call them out on missing opportunities,"

philnikki- I hope you understand that the version that ran on Sunday and Monday was EXTREMELY edited. The version that all of "the Clintonites, and the Democratic powers that be" as you call them were so upset about was MAJORLY hacked. I read an article, not too long ago, on Yahoo, that pointed out all of the scenes that were cut after the movie was screened for the critics.

For instance......In the UNEDITED version, two intellegence officials are talking about Bin Laden. One says to the other "Do you think Clinton will be strong enough to pull the trigger on this one?" and the other answers "I don't know, this Lewinsky thing is like a noose around his neck." NOBODY in the adminstration, especially the two intellegence officials who were supposedly quoted said that anything like this ever occured. It was completely fabricated, and didn't even accurately portray the mindset of Clinton at the time! It certainly was not Monica that kept him from killing Bin Laden. Totally without merit! (and that's why that scene was CUT!)

jnettie- I would like to highly commend you for writing this: "I also believe, as not only a liberal, but also a spiritual person, and someone who lived in NYC on Sept. 11, that it is a mistake to paint the terrorists as faceless crazy people who are just out to kill us all because the just hate us for no good reason. It is very easy to be angry at them, while very hard to see their side and actually understand why they do what they do. Aside from the political reasons, what makes a person board a plane that they will die in for their cause? I lived the fear, and it took me a long time to get to this point, but there is more to it than just jihadists who hate us. If we keep looking at them that way, and just keep lobing bombs at them, nothing will ever change."

If we never get to the 'why' of the September 11th attacks, we will fail to recognize or discover the extreme hopelessness, anger and total despair that many Islamists/Arabs feel. Christian Arabs feel some of these same feelings, but are not usually fanatical enough to carry out terror attacks. Howver, Ziad Jarah, who was the 'pilot' of Flight 93, was a Christian Arab I believe. At any rate, these feelings of hopelessness, etc, if not addressed, will only perpertuate (GOD FORBID) more attacks, and acts of violence against the US in the future. To write these people off as 'crazy, insane, lunatics and to not look beneath the surface to see WHY they might have done something this horrific, is to miss the opportunity to understand and prevent future violence!

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:00 PM

BTW, I'm not trying to be snarky, but where did someone call you stupid? I was looking through the prior posts and can't find it????

I was wondering that, too, but I think she was offended by Artist's post (http://www.constantchatter.com/forum/showpost.php?p=965865&postcount=46), which didn't seem to be referring to her directly.

And I completely agree w/jnettie's observation. If we write these people off as lunatics, we're not going to get anywhere.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:09 PM

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:14 PM

I am not referring to anyone in here, but I find the sentiment of "trying to understand what they do and not writing them off as lunatics" somewhat weak given that right here at home in America, we have blogs being written about how Christians are covertly trying to overthrow the entertainment industry. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure I see the connection . . . ? You seem to be bringing up these blogs about Christians overthrowing the entertainment industry an awful lot. I've never seen any -- where are these blogs? Sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to me.
I don't think anyone here has said that we need to understand where Islamic fundamentalists are coming from but we can write of super-right Christians because they're right-wing nut jobs.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:18 PM

Earlier in the thread there was a link to a Blumenthal article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html

Read the comments, they're just as fun as the article!

I did say also that I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread.

BTW, eta, I don't support misrepresentation of the facts. I'm just surprised that this incident has caused such a furor. You have to pretty much bury yourself under a rock to get away from the sentiment that the Bush administration is at fault for most crap going on right now, so this one dramatization placing blame on the Clinton administration I don't really see as much of anything but a pebble throw in terms of swaying the public. Although I guess I shouldn't be surprised, really.

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:20 PM

Earlier in the thread there was a link to a Blumenthal article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html

Read the comments, they're just as fun as the article!

I did say also that I wasn't referring to anyone in this thread.

Ah . . . Ms. Huffington. I do enjoy her website -- sort of a guilty pleasure for me. I'll have to check it out.

And I know you said that you weren't referring to anyone in this thread, but it seems like you might think those who want to understand the Islamists better generally want to write of Christians.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:27 PM

I do think that many people in general want to write off Christians without attempting to understand why they do or think what they do.

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:31 PM

I do think that many people in general want to write off Christians without attempting to understand why they do or think what they do.

I know that sometimes I want to write them off. I remind myself over and over again that's not the answer and that the Christian Right doesn't represent all Christians in this country. I do the same thing when it comes to any sort of fundamentalists. I have to remind myself that there are reasons that they do what they do.

But you know what? I think I'm in the minority -- most people in this country consider themselves Christians, so I don't understand the persecution complex I seem to see in so many Christians. It's weird to me.

philnikki

09-12-2006, 12:35 PM

jennylou - what parts exactly are you referencing as counterfactual? The reason I ask this, is because it appears that many people are throwing out there that this movie is a big lie, without citing actual points in the movie that have been misrepresented. And in the event that someone has cited an article that outlines these events, there is no one other than the person its about (thus, obvious bias) saying its untrue! This movie was based off of the 9/11 Commission's report, but, as I mentioned before, I am not convinced that it is, in it's entirety, the "truth" either. I know from the reading that I am doing on this, that the writers of this movie contacted various other people working in intelligence and whatnot during that time to confirm events. So although the events portrayed in the movie are not verbatim what is in the 9/11 commission's report, it doesn't mean that they didn't happen. In fact, I offered support from someone who is very anti-bush, regarding the event depicted showing that Sandy Berger halting the operation that could have captured Osama. Post #39 (sorry, java has been disabled here, so there are a lot of things I can use from work, including linking posts).

MLA - You are correct.

nylons79 Would you mind citing the source for that? And yes, I am aware, that it was edited. From what I have read though, only one minute of the entire 5 hours was removed. So I wouldn't necessarily call that hacking. Do you have another source that tells the amount of time cut from the movie was something much greater?

And just curious, now that the movie has aired, what do you feel has been the fall out? I feel like all of the drama out there is infantalizing the viewing public, almost as if we all assume that people who watch this won't do so with a questioning mind. Obviously, we all are intelligent enough here not to blindly accept what is on TV as fact. So who exactly are we trying to protect anyway?

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:38 PM

I am a Christian but I don't consider myself a fundamentalist at all. I myself consider most Christian fundamentalist behavior to be irrational, as I do fundamentalist behavior in general. My point was, simply, I think many people do want to write off Christians specifically without trying to understand them.

Case in point: the Blumenthal article. You're from L.A., MLA--you know how it is here. What is so surprising or secretive about someone who is interested in film and also a strong Christian to want to convey a Christian message via film? God knows everyone out here has THE story to tell and is struggling like hell for a megaphone. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I don't necessarily agree with a lot of things that get put to film or television audiences. I'm just not suprised by it nor find it sneaky.

philnikki

09-12-2006, 12:43 PM

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:48 PM

To clarify; I don't think Christians are the scapegoat of the world. Really! We have it pretty good in America.

nylons73

09-12-2006, 12:50 PM

wendelah - I agree with you entirely. I am a Christian (and a Catholic, but lets not go there), and I am made to feel as if the world's problems are my fault, simply by the fact that I am Christian. I think, generally speaking, that since Christians are the majority, that they are the scapegoat for many things that are wrong with the world.

How are Christians the majority? There are 4 BILLION Chinese who might disagree ;)

I will look for the article about how much the movie was hacked. It was edited A LOT more than a minute.

As far as the movie being based on the 9/11 Commission report, the C0-CHAIRMAN (Thomas Keane) who is a former Republican Gov., came out and said that the movie DID NOT follow the 9/11 Commission report and should not be publicizing the fact that they based their content from it. When someone like that comes out so strongly against the movie, I tend to take notice.
Off to find the links....

philnikki

09-12-2006, 12:51 PM

wendalah - I was speaking of being a scapegoat within context of the political environment here in the US.

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:51 PM

You're from L.A., MLA--you know how it is here. What is so surprising or secretive about someone who is interested in film and also a strong Christian to want to convey a Christian message via film?
I don't find it surprising -- and not really sneaky, either. I mean, if Christian fundamentalists are trying to be sneaky about getting their message out, they're doing a pretty piss-poor job of it. We're all on to them already! ;) :p

since Christians are the majority, that they are the scapegoat for many things that are wrong with the world.

Yes, I think you're right about that, to a degree. My father hates all things religious -- he thinks that religion is the root of most of the world's problems (i.e religious wars). I think he's right that religion is often the excuse, but really it's human nature that's at fault. If it wasn't religion, it would be something else that we'd kill each other over. Okay that's sort of beside the point . . .
I think that it's really a small minority (the fundamentalists) of the Christian majority that so many people have a problem with. I really think that intelligent people realize that not all Christians are fundamentalists.

philnikki

09-12-2006, 12:54 PM

nylons haha, you are correct :) I meant here in the US. Looking forward to your articles. Again, just trying not to accept something as being counter factual, because someone with something to lose says so. To see something coming from a non-biased source would lead me to change my opinion, but so far, I haven't seen anything. Thanks!

wendalah

09-12-2006, 12:55 PM

Anyone ever been to a Christian music sales conference? Y'all would die...lots of talk about how God has provided the avenue of entertainment to spread the word.

pocket

09-12-2006, 12:56 PM

There’s a big difference between something shown on TV and a movie. One is independently funded and the other is publicly subsidized. Television is a public resource. TV stations and content providers rent that airspace from you and me. That’s the difference, and it’s a pretty big one.

My big issue is with the narrative and the bald propaganda. I’ve always been pretty :rolleyes: at the idea that what’s on TV is somehow complicit with the government, but doesn’t it seem like it? I don’t understand why ABC would be invested in the Bush administration’s historical revisionism. I understand that they are owned by Disney, but it’s shocking to me that they would be so complicit in broadcasting something that they must know is just not true. The only thing that makes people think the Clinton administration was at fault for 9/11 is propaganda. It’s just not true that there was a chance to take out AQ that was quashed. Look it up for yourself. Plus – they actually stopped an attack on LAX! I agreed with the bombing of AQ training camps in Afghanistan. I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, and just look at what we have wrought there since we turned most of our attention to Iraq? They grew a ton of opium and now they have money. They want us OUT. And honestly, is there a point where everything that is wrong with America stops being Clinton’s fault? I get that people are against intern hummers, but what is the deal with still blaming him for everything? It’s not like the bush administration has been some cotton candy walk in the park. It’s been a real c*o*c*k-up of pretty much everything as far as I can see. Especially foreign policy and especially terrorism.

I’m not going to claim that we have ever done a good job of combatting terrorism. But when have there not been small militia groups dedicated to overthrow and damage a large government entity? Chanukah is right around the corner, after all. And more recently, WWI was started by a terrorist group called the Black Hand.

nylons73

09-12-2006, 12:58 PM

from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_en_tv/tv_path_to9_11_lessons

Lessons learned from ABC's `9/11' folly

By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer
28 minutes ago

NEW YORK - In dramatizing how our government's mistakes and negligence helped pave the way for disaster five years ago, "The Path to 9/11" was meant to be a wake-up call for viewers.

It was a wake-up call, all right.

Last week, the five-hour ABC miniseries ignited a firestorm of protest. The blogosphere was up in arms as e-mailers barraged the network in the tens of thousands. Prominent Democrats called the film biased and error-filled in how it trashed the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies. Pressure to fix it escalated into demands that the whole miniseries be scrapped.

Even so, "The Path to 9/11" aired as scheduled Sunday and Monday, though with some key lines of dialogue (most of them at President Clinton's expense) eliminated.

But the damage had been done, leaving a shambles of the film's stated mission: to chronicle how government spanning two administrations betrayed the trust of its citizens.

What does "The Path to 9/11" tell us instead?

• For one thing, it reminds us that aggrieved liberals can get just as riled at the media as conservatives. Never mind that ABC and its parent, the Walt Disney Co., are part of what the right wing slams as the liberal media elite. Disney was nonetheless accused of shelling out $40 million to craft a docudrama that would curry favor with the Bush administration, its airing shrewdly timed to the midterm election.

• The film's brutal reception also demonstrates how, when a protest hits its stride, nearly everybody loves to pile on. Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Hewitt heartily endorsed "The Path to 9/11," but their fellow conservative pundit (and former Reaganite) Bill Bennett weighed in against it. And even Harvey Keitel, the film's star, confessed on CNN to doubts about its accuracy back when he was shooting it.

Meanwhile, the "Path to 9/11" ambush should have taught ABC and the filmmakers these valuable lessons:

• First, get your story straight. When you deal with a subject as disturbing and painful as the 9/11 attacks, it's a good idea to not misrepresent it. And when your film shovels blame on powerful people, especially a former president, it's wise to remember that those bigwigs bite back. It's best to have the facts on your side.

• The other lesson: Get your story straight. When you're hyping a program, make sure, up front, to nail down what you're hyping it as.

Full-page magazine ads last week billed "The Path to 9/11" as "Based on The 9/11 Commission Report." Period. The message being peddled: This film would stay faithful to the definitive written account, with commission chairman Thomas Kean on board to certify its authenticity.

And yet by Sunday, ads were omitting any mention of the 9/11 Report. So did the opening credits of the film in the version that aired.

Authenticity was certainly taken for granted by certain critics who reviewed "The Path to 9/11" before the outcry began. Assigning it a grade of D-plus, Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker found it "hamstrung by the very thing ABC is so proud of": the 9/11 Report and Kean's seal of approval. It's "useless as drama," Tucker concluded, for straining "so hard to be objective and evenhanded."

Evenhandedness was the goal, at least, according to director David Cunningham.

"There was no agenda for this movie to go after a particular party or person," he said in a recent interview. "This is not a blue-state/red-state movie."

He described the rigorous attention to detail, which extended even to the neckties worn by the actor who plays former CIA director George Tenet: They duplicate ties Tenet actually wore. "They were taken right from photographs," said Cunningham.

He spoke of the teams of consultants and experts (in addition to Kean) recruited to ensure the film's accuracy. And when they differed on a given point, "we would use the 9/11 Report as our `plumb line,' and refer back to it."

But how, then, to explain numerous instances cited by the film's detractors when it contradicted the 9/11 Report, its alleged reality check? And what of word that at least one on-set technical adviser quit the film because of inaccuracies the producers refused to correct?

Faced with mounting controversy, ABC backpedaled from its claim that "The Path to 9/11" was the real deal, acknowledging "fictionalized scenes" and "composite and representative characters and dialogue."

Even Kean, in a teleconference, seemed to retreat. "I don't think the facts are clear" about certain events dramatized in the film, he said, and though the filmmakers chose to stage a scene one way, "it could have happened any number of ways."

Truth? Fable? Theatrics? Propaganda? Some sort of witch's brew that blends them all? Watching "The Path to 9/11," viewers couldn't be sure.

MLA

09-12-2006, 12:59 PM

Anyone ever been to a Christian music sales conference? Y'all would die...lots of talk about how God has provided the avenue of entertainment to spread the word.

Eeeww. That creeps me out for some reason.

pocket

09-12-2006, 01:00 PM

wah! boo-hoo! poor christians! *snort*

yeah, it's SO hard to be christian and be persecuted by everyone.

nylons73

09-12-2006, 01:03 PM

And..from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/arts/television/12path.html?ref=arts

On the set, however, there were disputes about the accuracy of the film, according to two F.B.I. agents who were or were asked to be associated with the film. One of the agents, Thomas E. Nicoletti, was hired by the mini-series’s producers in July 2005 to oversee its technical accuracy, but left after less than a month because of scenes he said he believed were misleading or just false.
“There were some of the scenes that were total fiction,” said Mr. Nicoletti, who served as a supervisory special agent and a member of the joint terrorism task force before retiring in 2003. “I told them unless they were changing this, I could not have my name associated with it.”

Chief among Mr. Nicoletti’s concerns were scenes that put people at places they weren’t or plotted the narrative action out of chronological order. “There were so many inaccuracies,” he said. Mr. Nicoletti said he asked the producers to make changes, but was rebuffed. “I’m well aware of what’s dramatic license and what’s historical inaccuracy,” Mr. Nicoletti said. “And this had a lot of historical inaccuracy.”

After initially promoting the film as being based on the official report of the Sept. 11 Commission, ABC changed that promotion last week to say the film was based on a number of sources. And it added a disclaimer that ran at least three times during the broadcast on Sunday. The disclaimer noted that “for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.”

And from another source...http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060912/1012118.asp

ABC airs altered 9/11 docudrama but loses in the ratings to football
By DAVID BAUDER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
9/12/2006

NEW YORK - Editing changes made by ABC to the first part of its miniseries "The Path to 9/11" were cosmetic and did not change the meaning of scenes that had angered several former Clinton administration officials, a spokesman for the former president said Monday.
Former counterterrorism director Richard A. Clarke, now an ABC News consultant, denounced the movie Monday as an "egregious distortion."

The so-called docudrama also divided the two chairmen of the commission that looked into the attacks, who usually present a united front on terrorism issues.

The movie was beaten soundly in the ratings by the regular-season debut of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," matching Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts against younger brother Eli of the New York Giants. The National Football League game had an estimated 20.7 million viewers, while "The Path to 9/11" had 13 million, according to Nielsen Media Research. The ABC movie did, however, beat CBS' third airing of a 9/11 documentary, which was seen by an estimated 10.6 million people, Nielsen said.

ABC resisted calls to cancel the $40 million miniseries, airing commercial-free over two nights. Part 2 was scheduled for Monday, with an interruption for President Bush's address to the nation.

Clarke said the movie "is an egregious distortion that does a deep disservice both to history and to those in both the Clinton and Bush administrations who are depicted."

ABC hired a production company and screenwriter who were unqualified for the job, he said.

"There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton administration officials as holding back the hard-charging CIA, FBI and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9/11," he said. "The exact opposite is true."

Ok, I'm done. :)

wendalah

09-12-2006, 01:10 PM

Eeeww. That creeps me out for some reason.

Well, if you look at it from a general viewpoint, yeah, sure, God has provided the avenue of entertainment to spread any word anyone wants to spread.

philnikki

09-12-2006, 01:15 PM

Ladies, I have to take off, but I wanted to comment on pocket's sarcasm. You obviously have problems with Christians. Don't you feel as if the blame gets laid on pretty thick in daily media? I do!

Anyone in any other religion gets a free pass in your eyes don't they? I were a Hindu, or Jewish, or Muslim, and I felt like I get sh*t on all the time in the press, you would be right there to help me fight for my rights! But because I am Christian, I am simply wrong by the fact that I exist. I feel targeted and attacked on CC constantly, because there is a very obvious liberal slant to this site. And that's ok. because we all need a voice, but you don't see me rolling eyes, *snorting*, calling names, etc. just to belittle someone else or their opinions. So yeah, I do feel like you don't like me because of the fact that I am white, I am Christian, and I don't consider myself a liberal. Does that make me a scapegoat? I think it does.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 01:18 PM

Philnikki: You are Catholic so you get a pass...we think we are better than other Christians and the born-agains think we are gonna rot in hell. ;)

pocket

09-12-2006, 01:19 PM

I'm Jewish. My grandparents are survivors and my entire European family is dead. Believe me, Christians are NOT persecuted. Persecution is something very different.

Also - dude! You are in charge! You have all the power right now! Why all the moaning and groaning about persecution - white conservative christians haven't had it this good in 50 years!

diam124

09-12-2006, 01:20 PM

Full-page magazine ads last week billed "The Path to 9/11" as "Based on The 9/11 Commission Report." Period. The message being peddled: This film would stay faithful to the definitive written account, with commission chairman Thomas Kean on board to certify its authenticity.

And yet by Sunday, ads were omitting any mention of the 9/11 Report. So did the opening credits of the film in the version that aired..

:confused: I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but they most definitely did mention the 9/11 report in the opening credits. It was very clearly written on the screen and said it was a dramatization based on the 9/11 commission report and other sources and was a dramatization not a documentary.

nylons73

09-12-2006, 01:27 PM

:confused: I'm not sure I'm reading this right, but they most definitely did mention the 9/11 report in the opening credits.

Well, I think that's a shame.

ETA: If somebody really wants to see a true documentary about the 9/11 Commission and their report, an awesome one is called "On Native Soil." It was put together by Court TV and it chronicles the families fight to even "get" a 9/11 commission at all! Then, it goes into what the 9/11 Commission found. It's very heartbreaking, very interesting, and has been praised by both sides for being evenly balanced. It basically applauds the outspoken family members for pushing and pushing until some investigation (into the FAA, into security, into everything) was done!

philnikki

09-12-2006, 01:27 PM

pocket First off, I never said that Christians were persecuted. Persecution is a very strong word. I said that we were made out to the scapegoat in the political environment in the US. Secondly, I am very sorry for what happened to your family. I hope that never, ever happens again in our lifetime. Third, you do mention in your post that Christians are not persecuted. All snarkiness aside, how do you reconcile that with the Islamic Jihad? I would classify that as persecution (obviously not only aimed at Christians, but we are included).

wendalah - ha ha! :)

philnikki

09-12-2006, 01:28 PM

Ok, now I am really going! I will check in on this thread tomorrow. Gotta go home to the kiddo :D

MLA

09-12-2006, 02:32 PM

Well, if you look at it from a general viewpoint, yeah, sure, God has provided the avenue of entertainment to spread any word anyone wants to spread.

I actually disagree -- Being an agnostic, I don't believe that at all.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 02:36 PM

MLA

09-12-2006, 02:38 PM

Well, again, yeah, sure. God, the big bang, Thomas Edison, David Geffen, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever that thing is folks like to reference on here--Christians obviously believe God created everything, so God in their case. It's difficult to argue that entertainment was created by whomever without the intention of carrying some sort of message.

Yeah, but I don't know if I believe that anything or anyone actually created anything for a purpose. I don't necessarily think that entertainment has a purpose other than the purpose humans have infused into it.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 02:40 PM

Yeah, but I don't know if I believe that anything or anyone actually created anything for a purpose.

:confused: Why create anything then?

MLA

09-12-2006, 02:43 PM

:confused: Why create anything then?

Am I really being that confusing? :confused: You took my quote out of context. That one bit by itself doesn’t really convey what I was trying to say. What I’m trying to say is I don’t believe that god or the flying spaghetti monster or vishnu or anyone created entertainment for some purpose. I believe the only purpose is the purpose humans infuse into things. What I’m saying is that there doesn’t need to be anything more than the human desire to create. I don’t need to believe that some all-powerful being is making me create something in order to want to create it.

wendalah

09-12-2006, 02:46 PM

Humans obviously created entertainment and media, but Christians believe it goes back to God since everything comes from God. Considering it's common for them to give thanks to God for everything basically, the idea that they are attributing thanks for the platform of whatever media seems to me to be a fairly easily drawn line. I dunno, I don't find it creepy, just par for the course in this group of people.

ETA: I was confused because I put human examples in my list of "creators."

MLA

09-12-2006, 02:51 PM

ETA: I was confused because I put human examples in my list of "creators."

Oh, and I was confused because I didn't notice David Geffen in your list. I was focused on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ;)

wendalah

09-12-2006, 02:55 PM

Don't forget Edison, for heaven's sake!

I realize I'm going around and around on this subject, but I do have a point, honestly ;) ...I really do try to think this way about most religious groups and the weird shit they do. Break it down and it's still weird shit. But most of the time there's not really anything secretive or evil inherent, just business as usual (if you will).

jnettie

09-12-2006, 03:00 PM

I am not referring to anyone in here, but I find the sentiment of "trying to understand what they do and not writing them off as lunatics" somewhat weak given that right here at home in America, we have blogs being written about how Christians are covertly trying to overthrow the entertainment industry. :rolleyes:

Well, I for one never blamed Christians for trying ot overthrow the entertainment industry...I blame the Republicans. ;)

Historically, I think Christians and Muslims are neck and neck for most atrocities performed by a single religion. There's the Crusades, where they did a good job of slaughtering each other, the Spanish Inquisition, and Muslims did a good job of killing every Buddhist in India a few hundrend years ago (can't remember the exact century now).

I can't think of a time when Christians were persecuted on a large scale, except for the Cultural Revolution in China, but then it was every religion. Maybe during the Reformation, but then it was different sects of Christianity fighting with each other.

But haven't we had this discussion before?

jnettie

09-12-2006, 03:12 PM

Oh, and nylons73 and MLA...thanks. :) It's not a popular thing to believe, but it's what I believe.

Asha

09-12-2006, 07:17 PM

Muslims did a good job of killing every Buddhist in India a few hundrend years ago (can't remember the exact century now).

don't forget the hindus. when india was divided and pakistan was given to the muslims, they persecuted/murdered many who would not convert to islam.

i do want to see the view point of others, but i really have no interest in looking through the eyes of a fanatical group of men who not only killed thousands in our country, but persecute half of their own population - the women.

jnettie

09-12-2006, 08:06 PM

True, true, but they didn't get all of them. Every Buddhist in India was killed. But, either way, no Indian was treated nicely in that time.

I agree...I have a real hard time with the way women are treated when it comes to Muslim extremists, and it's hard for me to reconcile my beliefs in women's rights and trying to see their side. But, that is still a different issue than the one at hand.

Delta

09-12-2006, 09:33 PM

Nobody caught my Swingline stapler reference. :(

wendalah

09-12-2006, 09:54 PM

That's OK, nobody laughed when I said "Chico's" in the "what do you boycott?" thread.

jnettie

09-13-2006, 07:00 AM

Nobody caught my Swingline stapler reference. :(

I did! I swear! Just didn't reply.

Asha

09-13-2006, 07:04 AM

That's OK, nobody laughed when I said "Chico's" in the "what do you boycott?" thread.

i was lol. i figured its because you are "offended" by the style of their clothing.

Asha

09-13-2006, 07:10 AM

I agree...I have a real hard time with the way women are treated when it comes to Muslim extremists, and it's hard for me to reconcile my beliefs in women's rights and trying to see their side. But, that is still a different issue than the one at hand.

i don't really see it as a different issue. i remember reading about afghanistan and how the taliban didn't allow women an education and stoned women who were raped long before 9/11. btw, this still goes on in pakistan and other extremist islamic countries, as well. i remember thinking that something should be done about the atrocities committed on women. why is it ignored when women are persecuted? if any group of people is promoting with public policy the torture of its own members of their population in a systematic way, there is no telling what they will and can do to people who don't support their beliefs.

kedzieb

09-13-2006, 07:49 AM

i don't really see it as a different issue. i remember reading about afghanistan and how the taliban didn't allow women an education and stoned women who were raped long before 9/11. btw, this still goes on in pakistan and other extremist islamic countries, as well. i remember thinking that something should be done about the atrocities committed on women. why is it ignored when women are persecuted? if any group of people is promoting with public policy the torture of its own members of their population in a systematic way, there is no telling what they will and can do to people who don't support their beliefs.

I agree with you that women's rights are usually secondary - especially in fundamentalist regimes. But honestly, war doesn't help. Women and children are the ones most harmed by war. The best way, based on the example of apartheid & other past human rights battles, to change the terrible treatment of women & other people hurt by harsh policies is through a global call for cahnge. Embargoes, sanctions, boycotts & rallies to a good jonb of first shedding light on abuse & then having any hope of change.

How are the women of Afghanistan doing now? War alone isn't enough to free them from tyrannical government & religious policies. I think we should be doing more in Afghanistan and even Pakistan to protest the Taliban's rule. Unfortunately, our military & diplomatic capital has been squandered in an unnecessary war in Iraq, so I don't have much hope of actually helping women in repressive Islamic regimes any time soon.

Asha

09-13-2006, 07:56 AM

oh, i never said war was the solution. i don't know what the solution would be. i said that people who are torture members of their own population could very well attack others who don't agree with their policies.

How are the women of Afghanistan doing now? War alone isn't enough to free them from tyrannical government & religious policies. I think we should be doing more in Afghanistan and even Pakistan to protest the Taliban's rule. Unfortunately, our military & diplomatic capital has been squandered in an unnecessary war in Iraq, so I don't have much hope of actually helping women in repressive Islamic regimes any time soon.
its far from perfect for women in afghanistan, but things have improved for them there. there are now schools for girls.

LyLMyssChaos

09-13-2006, 08:33 AM

Nobody caught my Swingline stapler reference. :(

Milton rawks!!! ;)

nylons73

09-13-2006, 02:58 PM

i really have no interest in looking through the eyes of a fanatical group of men who not only killed thousands in our country, but persecute half of their own population - the women.

No offense Asha, but I believe that if you don't look through other's eyes, just because what you might find there might offend you, then you will have little hope of understanding why were attacked. (perhaps you don't give a rip why we were attacked, but I'm just going on the premise that you are interested in finding out.)

I have had people say to me "I know all about X-group. "They're no good, and we don't need them here. I don't need to find out about them, I just want them gone (dead, deported, etc.)!" This has been said (in my presence or to me) about African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Indian-Americans, Arab-Americans and Immigrants (illegal and legal.)

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we shun finding out about other's perspectives, their lives, their beliefs, etc. (as difficult as this might be,) then we lose the chance to really be knowledgeable in our discussions about that particular group. Because we have not tried to understand the 'other' we are little informed about him, her or them.

An example to illustrate what I am talking about....
The other day, we were driving into our subdivision with my 11 year old stepdaughter and 6 year old adopted stepson. A Sikh man was walking down the sidewalk, his head wrapped tightly in a turban. The 11 year old said "What's up with that guy?" I was so glad she asked! (not the way she asked necessarily, but we can work on that.) I then got the chance to explain that Sikhs are holy people from India whose men consider their hair too holy to cut. Therefore, they wrap their very long hair in a turban and pile it ontop of their head. It's considered a very holy thing to do, and should not be confused at all with Middle Eastern Arabs who wear other turban like head coverings to beat the heat! ;) At any rate, I was very glad that our two children now have some knowledge of all of this, and they wouldn't have been informed if they hadn't asked a question! :) :) :)

msnicolea

09-13-2006, 03:16 PM

That's OK, nobody laughed when I said "Chico's" in the "what do you boycott?" thread.

Hey--I LOL'D!

Asha

09-13-2006, 04:02 PM

nylons - i think we are in more agreement than you think. what i mean by not wanting to understand is that it is very difficult for me to examine religious fanaticism from a completely unbiased stance. i cannot simply make objective observation of those cultures without having a very strong opinion about some of their practices. looking at things from their eyes, won't give much understanding as to why they do what they do. many people don't even understand why they are doing something. so basically when i am saying i don't want to look through their eyes, i don't see a purpose at looking at them without having my own self in there. there are certain actions of other people i will never tolerate or accept no matter what the reason behind it.

PG-rated

09-13-2006, 04:21 PM

its far from perfect for women in afghanistan, but things have improved for them there. there are now schools for girls.
Yeah, but it's still FAR worse than the pre-Taliban days, when women were routinely educated and held high-level professions. And of course, the Taliban came to power thanks to U.S. funding of Pakistani madrassas that trained resistance fighters within the Afghan refugee population. At the time, the U.S. didn't care how they treated women, as long as they could field a team that would beat the Soviets.

Asha

09-13-2006, 07:10 PM

i said -
i don't really see it as a different issue. i remember reading about afghanistan and how the taliban didn't allow women an education and stoned women who were raped long before 9/11. btw, this still goes on in pakistan and other extremist islamic countries, as well. i remember thinking that something should be done about the atrocities committed on women. why is it ignored when women are persecuted? if any group of people is promoting with public policy the torture of its own members of their population in a systematic way, there is no telling what they will and can do to people who don't support their beliefs.

you said -
Yeah, but it's still FAR worse than the pre-Taliban days, when women were routinely educated and held high-level professions. And of course, the Taliban came to power thanks to U.S. funding of Pakistani madrassas that trained resistance fighters within the Afghan refugee population. At the time, the U.S. didn't care how they treated women, as long as they could field a team that would beat the Soviets.

we're basically saying the same thing. also, i am well aware of the fact the u.s. gave many countries in the mideast weapons that they would now like to use against us. i agree with you on the fact the u.s. usually turns a blind eye to atrocities around the world unless it directly affects us.

MLA

09-13-2006, 07:33 PM

. A Sikh man was walking down the sidewalk, his head wrapped tightly in a turban. The 11 year old said "What's up with that guy?" I was so glad she asked! (not the way she asked necessarily, but we can work on that.) I then got the chance to explain that Sikhs are holy people from India whose men consider their hair too holy to cut. Therefore, they wrap their very long hair in a turban and pile it ontop of their head. It's considered a very holy thing to do, and should not be confused at all with Middle Eastern Arabs who wear other turban like head coverings to beat the heat!

I know you were trying to do a service to your stepdaughter, but I just had to point out that there were some errors in your explanation. These sort of things just bug me. Please don't take it as me trying to be snarky or anything.

All Sikh men wear turbans and let their hair grow. It's not just the holy leaders. So saying that Sikhs who wear turbans are holy people isn't quite right -- unless you believe that all people are holy.

And Arabs don't wear turbans merely to "beat the heat." It's a religious symbol for those who wear it, too.