Clinton Smackdown!

[Watchwatcher]

edd, i'm sorry, but i simply do not embrace the mainstream media's chorus that THE PATH TO 9/11 was a fabrication. You should read the following rebuttal from Mr. Nowrasteh carefully, it counters many of the mainstream commentary... again, who is spinning who... when the news media lines up squarely on one side, i'll take the other side on a bet anyday.

REMEMBERING 9/11 -

The Path to Hysteria

My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism.

BY CYRUS NOWRASTEH

Monday, September 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

"The Path to 9/11" was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack. Past is prologue, and 9/11 is merely another step in an escalating Islamic fundamentalist reign of terror. By dramatizing the step-by-step increase in attacks on America--all of which, in fact, occurred--we are better able to see the pattern and anticipate the future. That was the point of the series, its only intention. Call it the canary in the coal mine. Call it John O'Neill in the FBI.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11."

*****

[jkerouac]

I don't recall the "mainstream media" calling this movie a fabrication. I do recall them saying that certain key events were distorted. I also seem to recall the bipartisan chairs of the 911 comission distancing themselves from some of these distortions.

Does "mainstream media" distort the truth? Perhaps, but probably no more than "conservative media" such as Fox. (And in my book Fox today is as "mainstream" as NBC or the NY Times, so that "mainstream" label doesn't count for much.)

History, especially history that is happening as one speaks, is complex, and I don't believe there is one absolutely true interpretation of that history. Politicans and political parties twist and spin that history to thier advantage. Some politicans and parties have done a better job of twisting than others. That doesn't make them right.

The current administration has distinguished itself by twisting and spinning more outrageously than their predecessors.

Were opportunities missed by the Clinton administration? Almost certainly, but that in no way diminishes the travesty of decision-making exhibited at almost every point by Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney, and their cronies. They had the indecent nerve to accuse anyone who disagreed with them of being like apologists for Hitler or Stalin. What unmitigated gall! If anything, I see the administration henchmen as quasi fascists and the people who truly hold them up to scrutiny as the true patriots.

In most cases swings from conservative to liberal and vice versal correct these extremes. Unfortunately I fear that this administration has bulloxed the world situation so badly that not even the most brilliant successor administration, whether repub or democrat, can repair the damage. Why did they do it? Because they are heavy on idealogues, and to cement their political power by cultivating fear and arrogance among the American people.

Too often we still debate whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. Bucky, that ship has sailed. It's history. Whether we should have gone or not is somewhat irrelevant. The question is, how do we get out with a modicum of grace, minimizing the damage that has been done, and setting the stage for a gradual betterment of the international political scene.

Trying to pin the primary blame on Clinton is a grand evasion and beside the point. Politics as usual, in my opinion, and not a very good portent for moving forward toward a better future.

[Watchwatcher]

nanuq,

someone suggested that the reason for the current divide is that in America today about 20% of the country wants to see a radical change in the basic tenets of our culture... another 60% want to see these foundational moorings basically maintained... the rest fall somewhere in between. However, the 20% minority largely control or at least their views are heavily represented by Hollywood and the media--which evens up the battle to some degree. And actually 'war' is probably the more correct term... much more than a politics, this really boils down to a cultural war... hence the more biting nature... it involves core beliefs.

[eddhead]

edd, i'm sorry, but i simply do not embrace the mainstream media's chorus that THE PATH TO 9/11 was a fabrication. You should read the following rebuttal from Mr. Nowrasteh carefully, it counters many of the mainstream commentary... again, who is spinning who... when the news media lines up squarely on one side, i'll take the other side on a bet anyday.

REMEMBERING 9/11 -

The Path to Hysteria

My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism.

BY CYRUS NOWRASTEH

Monday, September 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on "10,000 Black Men Named George" (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of "The Day Reagan Was Shot," a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration's antiterrorism policies--though critical of its successor as well--were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response.

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

"The Path to 9/11" was intended to remind us of the common enemy we face. Like the 9/11 Report itself, it is meant to enable us to better defend ourselves from a future attack. Past is prologue, and 9/11 is merely another step in an escalating Islamic fundamentalist reign of terror. By dramatizing the step-by-step increase in attacks on America--all of which, in fact, occurred--we are better able to see the pattern and anticipate the future. That was the point of the series, its only intention. Call it the canary in the coal mine. Call it John O'Neill in the FBI.

Despite intense political pressure to pull the film right up until airtime, Disney/ABC stood tall and refused to give in. For this--for not buckling to threats from Democratic senators threatening to revoke ABC station licenses--Disney CEO Rober Iger and ABC executives deserve every commendation. Hence the 28 million viewers over two nights, and the ratings victory Monday night (little reported by the media), are gratifying indeed.

"The Path to 9/11" was set in the time before the event, and in a world in which no party had the political will to act. The principals did not know then what we know now. It is also indisputable that Bill Clinton entered office a month before the first attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years then went by, replete with terrorist assaults on Americans and American interests overseas. George W. Bush was in office eight months before 9/11. Those who actually watched the entire miniseries know that he was given no special treatment.

It's good to have come to something approaching the end of this saga, whose lessons are worth remembering. It gave us, for one thing, a heartening glimpse (these things don't come along every day) of corporate backbone in the face of phenomenal pressure--and an infinitely more chilling one testifying to the power and reach of politically driven hysteria. A ripe subject for a miniseries, if ever there was one.

Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11."

*****

For the record, it was not just the mainstream media that critisized the release of the 9/11 docu-drama, other political pundits and social observers did as well from both the left and right. Conservative commenators such as Bill Bennet, Pat Buchanan, George Will, and a host of others all had similar observatation... the events themselves were dramatic enough... we do the historical record an injustice when we overlay fictional, and distorted facts against them. Other critics include Lee Hamilton and Tom Keane, co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission. The mistruths are notable including a scene in which President Bush called for action after reading the now famous intelligence breifing entittled "Bin-Laden determined to attack inside the US". According to the 9/11 commisssion, this never happened.. indeed, the commission was struck by just how little attention was paid to this report. In fact the 9/11 commission report also concluded that while the Clintion adminsitration made mistakes, they were certainly NOT distracted as the film suggests they were. This is the basis for most but not all of the criticism

As for Cyrus Nowrasteh, depite his protests there are many reasons to believe this film was a politically motivated attempt to distort the Clinton record. Here are some interesting facts about Nowrasteh:

In 2004 he spoke at an annuall Liberyt Fil Festivaleent whose stated purpose was to promote conservative films too out of the mainstream for holywood. The current 2006 LFF is identified as "A Program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center", and extreme right-wing activist group, boasting members including Rush Limbauh, Sean Hannerty and America's favorite voice of social tolerance, Ann Coulter

In additon, the film itself was conceived by a right wing christian activist organization known as Youth With A Mission (YWAM) though thier adjunct The Film Institute. TFI's founder just happens to be the director of the 9/11 docu-drama, David Cunningham. There mission statement is "dedicated to a Godly transformation and revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Televisionindustry" Is it any wonder that a right wing fundamenalist group is reluctant to point a finger a born again christian president who consistently panders to the religous right? Make no mistake about it.. Bush is their boy.

So how did the film's producers get away with this? It seems that if you call something a docudrama as opposed to a documentary, you have free reign to intersperse fiction with fact and totally mislead your audience.

[eddhead]

I agree. So if this minority is attempting to push their beliefs on everyone else, to change "the way things are done" what is it that makes them think it's okay to do that, and to use often-violent tactics to accomplish that end?

Has society lost all manners and mutual respect for each other?

I believe that a divided society WILL fall. When we spend more time attacking each other than we do attacking problems, we have lost sight of the true goal. When the need to be right becomes more important than your neighbor's need to feel a sense of ownership of his/her ideas, something is seriously wrong.

I think it is actually more than that. As a result of gerrymandering, and the power of incumbancy (along with the money it brings) that you commented on yesterday, very few people's vote actually count for anything anymore. Most local districts are now drawn along bery strict partisan boundries.. you pretty much know which districts will vote republican and democrat right out of the box, just by virtue of the demographics. This of course has signficant implications on congressional seats and perhaps even the electoral collage. That is why there is little room for predicatablity in elections over House Seats.. more so in the senate.

So what happens is major national elections are controlled by the few battleground geographies that are niether liberal nor conservative in tems of their voting prefernces and demographics. The issues that are discussed are issues central to that relatively small demographic. That is how issues around gays and guns get prominance over issues national security and the economy, despite the fact that on a national level, those issues are really not as important to a majority of Americans. The system is rigged, and I find it demoralizing.

[eddhead]

The question is with all the hype around global warning and all the hate against Hillary C nowadays will the bore Al Gore run again? and can he win?

BTW I would give my vote for Al

I would vote for him too. Here are the issues he was right about:

1. Global warming

2. The first war in Iraq, Dessert Storm whcih he was for as a senator

3. The second war in Iraq which he was against and strongly said so despite the political climate of the times.

Not only that but for all the ridicule, the fact is he was also correct about the Internet. Of course he did not invent it, but he did sponser legislation that provided the funding for its development, and understood very early on about how the web could transform the global economy and enable e-commerce.

He needs a personalty transplant, no doubt, and he comes off as patronizing, but he is a smart and capable man.

[jkerouac]

I agree. So if this minority is attempting to push their beliefs on everyone else, to change "the way things are done" what is it that makes them think it's okay to do that, and to use often-violent tactics to accomplish that end?

Has society lost all manners and mutual respect for each other?

I believe that a divided society WILL fall. When we spend more time attacking each other than we do attacking problems, we have lost sight of the true goal. When the need to be right becomes more important than your neighbor's need to feel a sense of ownership of his/her ideas, something is seriously wrong.

I agree, particularly with your final paragraph.

I'd love to read a good, nonpartisan analysis of the politics of divisivness and how it evolved. I don't agree that Hollywood and the "mainstream media" are the problem, although at times they make convenient foils.

I'd also like to see fresh definitions of what it means to be "conservative" and what it means to be "liberal." HBO ran a biography of Barry Goldwater recently (filmed by his granddaughter, so it is mostly adulatory). Goldwater is considered by many to be the father of modern conservatism, yet it is interesting to note that he was pro freedom of choice in respect to abortion, and he was tolerant (for the time) of gay rights -- both positions that would probably make him anathema to the conservative wing of the Republican party today.

And if George Bush is a conservative, then what the !#%* has he done to maintain the sound economic foundation that was handed to him by the previous administration? [censored] it away with reckless financial/tax policies that in my opinion are the farthest thing from conservative (unless, of course, you get to promote your own tortured definition of what conservatism means).

I don't consider today's "social conservatives" to be conservative at all. The religious right wants to impose its will on the rest of the country. In my opinion, they are the true 20% as alluded to in Watcher's post. It is ironic at a time when we are fighting Islamic extremists, but in their own way I consider the religious right in the US to be the "American taliban" and much more of a threat to this country than the NY Times, Washington Post, or even Hollywood. Is the religious right conservative? Not in my book. They are the true radical extremists.

[ekhunter]

I would vote for him too. Here are the issues he was right about:

1. Global warming

2. The first war in Iraq, Dessert Storm whcih he was for as a senator

3. The second war in Iraq which he was against and strongly said so despite the political climate of the times.

Not only that but for all the ridicule, the fact is he was also correct about the Internet. Of course he did not invent it, but he did sponser legislation that provided the funding for its development, and understood very early on about how the web could transform the global economy and enable e-commerce.

He needs a personalty transplant, no doubt, and he comes off as patronizing, but he is a smart and capable man.

It goes back to what I said before, same old faces. We need new blood to run for office, businessmen, bankers, hippies, I don't care, anything is better than what we have every four years that runs for President. I'm sick of the politicians hopping from one office to another. I jokingly said Ron Jeremy for President in an earlier thread, but he might actually be more qualified than half of these assholes. Al Gore is a power hungry [censored], just like all of the rest of them (including GWB). Career politicians are just that, not statesmen, not people that really care about the public, just big egos looking to fulfill their pockets and ambitious dreams on the public dime. We voted in term limits in Louisiana (much to the chagrin of the politicians) and now they are trying to circumvent that left and right. We now have all of these term limited Senators running for everthing from Insurance Commissioner to Dog Catcher. They just can't walk away from the power and corruption. It's their nature, they just can't help it. Our politicians can get caught on tape taking bribes, extorting money, and still get reelected. I guess Louisiana is the worse when it comes to corruption, but nationally, they aren't that much better. Like the Abramhoff scandel, just follow the money! It's sickening! to the same old same old.

Retreads, that's all we get!

[eddhead]

It goes back to what I said before, same old faces. We need new blood to run for office, businessmen, bankers, hippies, I don't care, anything is better than what we have every four years that runs for President. I'm sick of the politicians hopping from one office to another. I jokingly said Ron Jeremy for President in an earlier thread, but he might actually be more qualified than half of these assholes. Al Gore is a power hungry [censored], just like all of the rest of them (including GWB). Career politicians are just that, not statesmen, not people that really care about the public, just big egos looking to fulfill their pockets and ambitious dreams on the public dime. We voted in term limits in Louisiana (much to the chagrin of the politicians) and now they are trying to circumvent that left and right. We now have all of these term limited Senators running for everthing from Insurance Commissioner to Dog Catcher. They just can't walk away from the power and corruption. It's their nature, they just can't help it. Our politicians can get caught on tape taking bribes, extorting money, and still get reelected. I guess Louisiana is the worse when it comes to corruption, but nationally, they aren't that much better. Like the Abramhoff scandel, just follow the money! It's sickening! to the same old same old.

Retreads, that's all we get!

I agree with much of this although I am not sure corruption is the overriding issue here.. it is the lack of new ideas. The fact is the two party system is failing us... as my favorire comic, Louis Black is prone to say " The Republicans are a party of bad ideas, and the democrats are a party of NO ideas" These people spend half their elected terms or more just trying to get re-elected... at the expense of doing the people's business , and once they are elected they are almost impossible to unseat..They have too much money and party support.

And the public is equally to blame.. People do not want to invest the time to understand the issues and to get the facts.. they want it spoon fed to them. Give it to us in 30 second sound bites. That is why phrases like "Stay the Course"... "You're either with us or against us" "Don't want to play the name-game" are used so often.. it is why Karl Rove is so powerfull.. they are catchy phrases that stay with people... 4 years after 9/11 and a significant percentage of americans STILL think saddam was in some way behind the attack.. i find it embarrassing.

[ekhunter]

I agree with much of this although I am not sure corruption is the overriding issue here.. it is the lack of new ideas. The fact is the two party system is failing us... as my favorire comic, Louis Black is prone to say " The Republicans are a party of bad ideas, and the democrats are a party of NO ideas" These people spend half their elected terms or more just trying to get re-elected... at the expense of doing the people's business , and once they are elected they are almost impossible to unseat..They have too much money and party support.

And the public is equally to blame.. People do not want to invest the time to understand the issues and to get the facts.. they want it spoon fed to them. Give it to us in 30 second sound bites. That is why phrases like "Stay the Course"... "You're either with us or against us" "Don't want to play the name-game" are used so often.. it is why Karl Rove is so powerfull.. they are catchy phrases that stay with people... 4 years after 9/11 and a significant percentage of americans STILL think saddam was in some way behind the attack.. i find it embarrassing.

You're definately right about a lack of new ideas. I thought the third party idea really had a chance when the 'little general' Ross Perot was going to fund it years ago, but when he decided to be the party's representative for President , I think it lost a lot of momentum. It's a shame we(Americans) keep electing these same people over and over. Big money in the campaign war chest have a lot to do with that, but remember Jesse Ventura. He did it with little money, and a lot of people didn't take him seriously, but he had a lot of great ideas, and actually wasn't that bad of a Governor. I guess corruption is just a way of life here in Louisiana, but I notice it is a big problem everywhere, it's just who's getting caught or not. We have an ex-Governor in prison, the last three Insurance Commissioners have gone to prison, and probably soon, our most corrupt congressman--U.S. Rep. William Jefferson. The people unfortunately keep voting these bozos in. I'm not a fan of the two party system, but the money in this country is. Unfortunately, this country that we live in reminds me so much of the Roman Empire in it's waning days. Hopefully it won't end the same, but I'm not so sure.

[gran]

The question is with all the hype around global warning and all the hate against Hillary C nowadays will the bore Al Gore run again? and can he win?

BTW I would give my vote for Al

[Watchwatcher]

edd..

As for Cyrus Nowrasteh...

"...whose stated purpose was to promote conservative films too out of the mainstream for holywood."

Um... yes? Do you think Hollywood is representative of the mainstream?

"...the film itself was conceived by a right wing christian activist organization known as Youth With A Mission (YWAM) though thier adjunct The Film Institute. "

Again... um, yes? I've stated this before, YWAM is a fantastic organization that has done some tremendous humanitarian work in many emerging countries. The founder, Loren Cunningham is a remarkable, honest and humble man. And yes, the media has attempted to paint YWAM, of all organizations, as some kind of 'cultish' political operative. Those of us who know Loren and his organization have been kind of amazed, amused and shocked at this twisted distortion.

I suspect there are many who buy into press commentaries, which seem an inch deep and a mile wide. There are several bloggers that have had a field day with various 'cloak and dagger' or conspiracy theories. No amount of arguing in an online forum will resolve this... as they say... you can fool some of the people all of the time... and all of the people some of the time...

[eddhead]

edd..

As for Cyrus Nowrasteh...

"...whose stated purpose was to promote conservative films too out of the mainstream for holywood."

Um... yes? Do you think Hollywood is representative of the mainstream?

"...the film itself was conceived by a right wing christian activist organization known as Youth With A Mission (YWAM) though thier adjunct The Film Institute. "

Again... um, yes? I've stated this before, YWAM is a fantastic organization that has done some tremendous humanitarian work in many emerging countries. The founder, Loren Cunningham is a remarkable, honest and humble man. And yes, the media has attempted to paint YWAM, of all organizations, as some kind of 'cultish' political operative. Those of us who know Loren and his organization have been kind of amazed, amused and shocked at this twisted distortion.

I suspect there are many who buy into press commentaries, which seem an inch deep and a mile wide. There are several bloggers that have had a field day with various 'cloak and dagger' or conspiracy theories. No amount of arguing in an online forum will resolve this... as they say... you can fool some of the people all of the time... and all of the people some of the time...

wow. we are defintely going to have to agree to disagree about this one...Bear in mind the mission statement quoted was not created by me.. it is created by TFI... read it again... "To OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM..." this is an acknowledgment that the desired content is not WITHIN the mainstream..this is not based on holywood's definition of what is mainstream it is based on TFI's definition. TFI is a propaganda machine wholy dedicated to the christian right and right wing causes. the parent organization may have done charitable work.. lots of politicaly oriented groups do good work... for that matter so does Hezbolah, not that I am equating the too. The point is that thier good works do not detract motivations.. they want to reshape current thought and historical fact. And David Horowitz is off the charts in terms of promoting right wing agenda

Let me say this again... this film was classifed by its makers as a docu DRAMA which gave the producers literaly license to introduce fictional scenes and accounts. If Nowrasteh was as concerned about getting the true story out as he says he was, he would have written a documentary, pure and simple. His assertions are pure BS.

Before the film was aired, all you heard from the producer was a recognition on how license was taken during the writing and production of the film as part of the creative process and for pure entertainment value. He blamed the inaccuracies on the actors ad-libbing. Also pure BS. Now once the film is released the story changes, now it is a true account. Please.

It has been well substantiated that several of the scenes in the film, scenes I mentioned in my last post, NEVER HAPPENED, including the administrations quashing or plans to take out bin laden, and the portions that portrayed Berger and Albright's council and decision making within the constuct of political considerations rather than tactical ones. Read the 9/11 commission report. Listen to the people who are pushing back. Kean, Hamiltion, Bennett, Fund.. these are not people who are friendly to Bill Clinton.

Yesterday Keith Olberman interviewed Paul Kurtz former director of counter terrorism for both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Somehow, Olberman was able to get his hands on a cover memo written by Richard Clarke and addressed to C. Rice on which referenced a comprehensive strategy to contain and remove al-qida as a threat to national security that was developed during the Clinton Admin. The date of the memo was January, and it was marked urgent. It was not reviewed until late August and an action commitee was not commissoned until September. Why? Because the Bush administrations' national security priorites were focused on missle defence and state sponsored terroism.. and al qida did not fit the mold. Was that mentioned in the film? In fact, they downgraded Clarke from a cabinet level to a deputy cabinet level post, eliminating any chance of his getting direct access to Rice and or Bush... instead his initiativies had to first be vetted with deputy undersecrataries.. and other bueracrats and layers ... who did not meet on a regular basis and who did no... I guess I missed that scene too. Kurtz was actually kind to the bushies... he indicated that he did not think they were blowing off Clarke, or didn't think the al qida strategy was important, but they were focused on the wrong priorites.. i.e. missle defense. If you do not think this is the case, I would invite you to review Bush's first post-inaguration address in January of 2001 where he clearly lays that out.

But what i find most outragous about the film were failures on the part of the writer and producer to interview the principles... albright, berger, tenet, etc... i mean it is one thing to write a docudrama about events long past in history involving people long since dead.. but these people are alive. I am sorry but this was a shamefull and transparent attempt to re-write history.

[Bansenshukai]

I am sorry but this was a shamefull and transparent attempt to re-write history.

Whoever assumes that a TV or theater "anything" (docudrama, based on true events, etc) is supposed to be history is naive and lazy. True documentaries are another matter. And yet, they still will carry over the producer's point-of-view in some respect.

Take the very popular movie "Black Hawk Down". It is very much based on true events and very realistic. Yet, they totally omitted key characters and introduced characters that never even existed. I personally have met and have spoken to members of the assault force to include having worked for both special operations unit commanders (later in their careers). One was never portrayed and the other was portrayed with a very negative slant. My point is that I don't think anyone is out there claiming to have known exactly how that operation went down using the movie as a reference. Anyone that does is definitely off his rocker.

Therefore, I cannot consider this, or even the film on Flight 93 as a source reference to document history. Honestly, I can't imagine that anyone with any level of education would. In my mind, directors and producers will always insert their own slant. Why are we surprised or find it "shameful"? I love over-dramatized discontent in politics. It's always much more interesting than saying: "I didn't like the film."

[eddhead]

Whoever assumes that a TV or theater "anything" (docudrama, based on true events, etc) is supposed to be history is naive and lazy. True documentaries are another matter. And yet, they still will carry over the producer's point-of-view in some respect.

Take the very popular movie "Black Hawk Down". It is very much based on true events and very realistic. Yet, they totally omitted key characters and introduced characters that never even existed. I personally have met and have spoken to members of the assault force to include having worked for both special operations unit commanders (later in their careers). One was never portrayed and the other was portrayed with a very negative slant. My point is that I don't think anyone is out there claiming to have known exactly how that operation went down using the movie as a reference. Anyone that does is definitely off his rocker.

Therefore, I cannot consider this, or even the film on Flight 93 as a source reference to document history. Honestly, I can't imagine that anyone with any level of education would. In my mind, directors and producers will always insert their own slant. Why are we surprised or find it "shameful"? I love over-dramatized discontent in politics. It's always much more interesting than saying: "I didn't like the film."

I think what most bothered me about this particular production, was that is so fresh, and as a NYC resident, 9/11 hit so close to home. In an interview that aired prior to the mini-series, David Cunningham admited that many of the key scenes in the film were fictional and suggested the actors involved ad-libbed much of what i consider to be offending dialog. The film's writer suggested the same obliquely... i do not have the exact quote handy, but it was something to the effect thte objective was to express the persepctive of the people who created the plan to kill bin-laden and who felt betrayed about the plan being rejected. There are two problems with this approach.. 1. it assumes the plan was based on reliable intelligence, and 2. it assumes you know the identiity of the persons who rejected the plan. This is where the writer fails. Accoridng to the principles (and this is verified in the 9/11 report) it was George Tenet, Director of the CIA who decided NOT to recommend going forward with his own agencies plan... in other words, it was shot down before the president and his national security advisors could approve or disapprove it. The reason, speaks directly to the first issue.. Senior officials at the CIA were not comfortable about the reliabliity of the intelligence sources and kiboshed the plan when informaton could not be validated by more reliable sources. Somehow that never made it into the film either. This fact, along with the others I posted in previous posts is the reason so many were so against the release of this film.

[HauteHippie]

I've never, EVER seen a politician utterly destroy a biased "journalist"

Interesting perspective. Clinton came off poorly in my view. His finger waving, his getting in the face of Wallace, his use of phrases such as "bunch of bull". All of it was unprofessional and unpresidential. But, then, his legacy is at stake and he knows it. That much is utterly transparent. So quite clearly he put on this display to avoid addressing the indisputable fact that Al Qaeda is a threat today because he screwed the pooch. They attacked us several times and he let them get away with it. And the best response he can muster is "at least I tried"??? Ouch. So remind me again... who destroyed who?