This review states Hollywood has depicted the events fairly, i.e, without its usual conspiratorial flavors:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=24042


"The Path to 9/11" starts with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and covers the international terrorist conspiracy that unfolded over the next eight years and led to 9/11. The miniseries is shocking for taking a pro-American, anti-terrorist approach that is all too lacking in Hollywood�s depictions of the War on Terror ("Syriana," "Fahrenheit 9/11," and "V for Vendetta" anyone?). At a time when the resolve of this country in fighting the War on Terror seems to be flagging, "The Path to 9/11" - much more than Oliver Stone�s "World Trade Center" - will remind the nation why we�re in this war. "The Path to 9/11" provides the context and the history that "World Trade Center" misses. FrontPage Magazine ran an excellent interview recently with writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh (who spoke at the 2005 Liberty Film Festival). This quote from Cyrus will make clear why I�m so excited about this miniseries:

"Nowrasteh: This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes �how we got there� going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, the political lead-up, the hatching of the terrorist plots, etc. We see the heroes on the ground, like FBI agent John O�Neill and others, who after the �93 attack felt sure that the terrorists would strike the WTC again. It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks � but lacked the will to do so. We also reveal the day-by-day lead-up of clues and opportunities in 2001 right up to the day of the 9/11 attacks. This is a terror thriller as well as a history lesson. I think people will be engaged and enlightened."

Looks good. It's about time we get a straightforward depiction based on the 9/11 report.

Clinton doesn't want it to air. He claims it misrepresents his efforts to capture Bin Laden.

Funny, but I don't recall he or any of his supporters stepping up to complain about the countless inaccuracies in Farenheit 911. In fact, wasn't that Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC?

Should be interesting. If ABC yanks it because Clinton doesn't like it, that would look really, really bad for them.

And so now ABC is altering the script to appease complaints by Democrats, especially Clinton and his staff). Methinks the Clinton legacy must be on very flimsy ground if a mini-series can upset them so much.

Not a good omen for Hillary in 2008 unless they can impose some face lifts. Have you seen this piece below, where OBL is apparently meeting with some of the 9/11 hijackers? Al Jazerra seems to have had this tape for some time. I wouldn't be surprised if some their journalist creeps knew of 9-11 prior to the attack, or at least held the tape so the Arab and Leftist diatribe could spin their conspiratorial tales afterward:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212800,00.html

And here's the report of one of Clinton's aids who says the original version of the movie got it right:


http://www.discoverthenetwork....0film%20correct.html

I tried watching for awhile last night but it gave me a headache. The film editing was horrible, imo, with constant switching from one scene or angle to another. The mind wasn't permitted to rest on any one view for more than 3 or 4 seconds. Very dissipating. Maybe the storytelling is good; I couldn't watch long enough to tell.

Is the regular TV viewer's attention span really so short, or is this some kind of attempt to communicate the frantic, chaotic nature of the issues at stake?

What comments from others.

I ended up watching part 2 and still found the editing distracting. I'm glad the story got told, however, and that more people have an idea of how we got to 9-11. Lots of bungled opportunities, and a country/government distracted by a wide variety of other issues.

This article by NRO does a good job summing up, imo.
- http://article.nationalreview....MGNkNTc0OTA3ODZhN2Q=

Sorry about that above...

I agree with you, Phil. The editing was terrible. My husband and I started to watch Part I and turned it off after about 15 minutes. Didn't watch Part II at all.

Katy

Just to sober those of us still shocked at Canada's soft approach to Islamic terrorist organizations:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...Article.asp?ID=24401


"On the eve of the 9/11 remembrance ceremonies, the leftist, anti-Bush Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada�s national public broadcaster, aired an outrageous and disgraceful documentary on a Sunday news program regarding half-baked 9/11 conspiracy theories that only served to insult the memories of those who perished that tragic day.

Titled 9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy, the only fascinating thing about the CBC show was its complete absurdity and the fact that it actually made it to air.

On the conspiracy side, it featured a young, budding �film-maker� whose online documentary portrays the destruction of the World Trade Center towers as the result of a bomb in the basement, demolition explosives planted beforehand throughout the buildings, and the airliner crash, which, it claims, was not enough in itself to topple the towers. According to this masterpiece of misleading fiction, the Pentagon was also hit by a missile, not by an airplane; and the passengers of United 93 didn�t crash into a Pennsylvania field, but disembarked at an airport."

quote:

Originally posted by w.c.:
[qb] ...documentary portrays the destruction of the World Trade Center towers as the result of a bomb in the basement, demolition explosives planted beforehand throughout the buildings, and the airliner crash, which, it claims, was not enough in itself to topple the towers. [/qb]

A disturbing number of Americans give some credence to such conspiracy theories. In my assessment, the crux of such attraction to distortion is denial (I use denial here in the sense that it is used in the stages of grief literature) of US vulnerability to attack. The US, in their view, is just too powerful to be successfully attacked. The government must, therefore, have brought it on themselves. They must have actually orchestrated it, a view that depends of a belief that the government is powerful enough not only to do it, but also hide it from all but these truth detectives.

A more pervasive view, also imho, influenced by such a denial of vulnerability is that we got hit because the us government was incompetent. That seems to be the underlying bias of the 9/11 report. Like conspiracy theories, it stems from a denial of the reality that no matter how competent our homeland security system is, we will still be vulnerable to successful surprise attack.

Hopefully, as we move through our corporate grief process we will move to acceptance of our vulnerability.

Sick of men like me waving their vulnerability like a flag? Here is a poem you might like.

Excerpt from "And The Men" by Tony Hoagland from Hard Rain: A Chapbook.

...Now they're ready to talk, really talk about their feelings,
in fact they're ready to make you sick with revelations of
their vulnerability�
A pool of testosterone is spreading from around their feet,
it's draining out of them like radiator fluid,
like history, like an experiment that failed.

So here they come on their hands and knees, the men:
Here they come. They're really beaten. No tricks this time.
No fine print.
Please, they're begging you. Look out.

Bill Clinton seems awfully defensive in this interview, and goes out of his way to attack Fox News and Chris Wallace. He calls "The Path to 9/11" "right-wing."
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4