Path To 9/11 Receives Un-Due Criticism

Democrats Getting a Taste of Their Own Medicine .

A movie will be released on ABC this Sunday September 10th at 7 central called "The Path to 9/11." This movie, mind you, is not advertised as a documentary, like Michael Moore’s movie Ferment 9/11 or Al Gore’s piece (of crap) An Inconvenient Truth, this is advertised as a Dramatization, based around fact.

What is upsetting all the democrats is that this film talks about what leads to and has causation to the 9/11 attack. Which, for those who don’t know, have to do with Clinton’s presidency.

Yep. There it is. Its not enough for the political left to get angry whenever 9/11 is talked about, because, of coarse, whenever you talk about the events in history that led us to the path we are on, that’s called “pollitizing the events” and “lying” and “underhanded tricks to support the administration.” But whenever you show a film that is not supportive of the administration its called… where are those quotes:

"No documentary takes you through the range of emotions the way that Michael Moore's controversial film does"
Reel.com

"Fahrenheit 9/11 does make a convincing argument that Moore is the country's most celebrated and socially significant filmmaker."
Korea Times

"Michael Moore is a masterful filmmaker, because his films elicit intense emotional responses from all who view them."
Trades

Moore makes a persuasive and unrelenting case that there is another way to look at things beyond the version we've been given.
Los Angeles Times

Masterful? The Corvette Z06 is Masterful. Moore is hardly the Z06. He is more like… an old Honda Minivan. Rusty and full of trash.

Moore’s farce was claimed to be a documentary, when clearly it was one guy’s interpretation and splice of people’s views to fit his own.

Michael Moore: [referring to the Saudis] Do they give you any trouble?
Secret Service Agent: I'm not at liberty to answer that.
Michael Moore: Okay, I'll take that as a yes.

Anyway, I could talk for days about how much of a liar Moore is, but this isn’t about Moore, its about the Bias in the complaints behind “A Path to 9/11.”

MSNBC tells us how Clinton officials protest the miniseries. And of corse, with a statement like this, they show that they are just sitting on the fence:

A “terribly wrong” miniseries about events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks blame President Clinton’s policies, former Clinton administration officials said in letters demanding that ABC correct it or not air it.

I will have to watch it before forming an opinion (much like Moore or Gore’s flicks) but according to a MSNBC vote: 60% of people (as of 9:17am) voting thing that ABC is misleading the public through its dramatization, and they haven’t even watched it!

News and papers are all over this thing too, and not in a good way:

Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb
-Chicago Sun-Times

Hindsight is heartbreaking and disturbing to watch, even in a made-for-television movie. But it’s even harder to take when those steps continue to contaminate the present.
-New York Times

Look, friends. Here is The Bottom Line:

• Liberals dish crap for years, and the moment something doesn’t support them, they cry bloody murder.
• Its too soon for anyone to judge because no one has watched it
• Face Facts, that President Clinton had more to do with the 9/11 attack the President Bush did.

**********Update 9/12/06 10:38pm**********

Many reviews are in about this thing.

CNN: Controversial '9/11' still powerful

Accuracy in Media: ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' Is Outstanding

MSNBC: ‘Path to 9/11’ tells a sad, riveting tale
This one is kind of interesting. In reading the review, you don't get a great sense of "love" for the movie, but then again, MSNBC I can site all over for showing their left-wing BIAS. This is as close as you'll get to hear MSNBC bash Clinton:

Whatever its flaws may or may not be, "The Path to 9/11" makes clear there's ample blame to go around.

Of the negative criticism, I think my favorite is this one:

Chicago Sun-Times: Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb

I like that... Even if its accurate, it should bomb. Why? Because it doesn't make Clinton look like he farts roses.

But then again, what would you expect when they call Fahrenheit 9/11 a:

A compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. -Roger Ebert

In an e-mail conversation with a friend, a good question/statement was brought up:

Would the capture have Bin Laden accomplished anything? Someone else would have taken his place--possibly someone worse. Capturing one man would not have seriously damaged Al-Qaida, in my belief. They would have continued onward, probably even angrier than before. The root of the problem needs to be addressed.

I can't answer that, however, in "The Path to 9/11" they mentioned wanting to bomb or wipe out a terrorist training camp, then bomb/wipe it out when it got rebuilt or moved, and keep doing so because of a couple of terrorist attacks that have been committed against the US at that time span of the Docudrama.

Without capturing the bastard and having him honestly tell us how instrumental he was in the 9/11 attack, there is no way of knowing, but if we had been destroying terrorist/Muslim extremist training camps one after another since the mid 90s, I would be more willing to say it would have probably had an impact on the whole "Lets blow up the Infidels" game plan. (It should be noted, BTW, that we did capture the 'Mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as of March 1st, 2003)

This brought up the question:

What would you consider to be the root of the problem and what might be a way(s)
to address and correct it/them.

I think the problem (and mind you, I’m no expert) is Muslim extremists in a crappy part of the world, who have nothing better to live for, and who are bitter/jealous because there are places in the world who have it better then they do (probably because we haven't been fighting wars of religion non stop for several decades) is the root of the problem. not all Muslims are like that. Look at all those who voted in Iraq, after all.

1. If you can bring peace and freedom from dictators to the region (and by force, because bringing peace by way of peace hasn't worked), but as we have discovered with Iraq, bringing peace and democracy to the middle east is kind of difficult.
2. Terminate the opposition. None of this 'trial' crap. when the 'bad guy' stands in a court room and says "If i would have had enough money, I would have killed you all," there is nothing better you can do besides drop the f***er.

How do you forcibly bring peace and democracy to an area?

First, they have to want it. the fact that a greater percentage of Iraqis voted under fear of getting blown up then Americans did in the last election will tell you something about whether or not they want it. But once you bring one powerful country in the area up and running, others should follow... it may take some 'seed planting' or just plain gett'in dirty, but don't forget... Our nation was formed on the violent overthrow of another country's system. (This is why we have the second amendment). To say that you can do this with nothing but Peace, doves, and Koohm-by-yah is naive at best... Dangerous at worst.

It would be something different if we were never attacked. But we were. And we have to deal with that.

I don't have enough information to know whether or not capturing or killing OBL 10 years ago would have helped. But then let me ask:

If England could have killed George Washington and/or Benjamin Franklin during our rebellion back in the 1700s, do you think that would have hurt our country's formation?