<p>The objection to the first scene cited was that Berger–he of the stolen/destroyed archived documents–had slammed the phone down. That scene was removed from the final film. The substance–that they had had UBL in their sights and had not authorized action–remains unrefuted.</p>
<p>The second, involving Albright, is related to the first, and eerily similar to the recent situation in which 200 Taliban fighters were in the sights of a drone–and no action was taken. Yes, the actual orders to stand down (in both cases) were no doubt physically issued by military personnel, and not the state department; however, their actual provenance remains unclear, although they stink to high heaven of the kind of civilian bureaucratic meddling that pervaded Vietnam.</p>
<p>I’ll contribute my thoughts on this article. I think there is much of value, including at least 5 points that are unrelated to the objections raised by the Clintons, CGM and others:</p>
<p>We all face the threat of terrorism.
People yearn for freedom, and America is a land of freedom.
Like unchecked government regulations, an excess of tolerance leads to an erosion of civil liberties.
As George Santayana said, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
In this case, the ultimate guardian of free speech was a corporation, Disney/ABC. How ironic is that?
<p>if part of a story is false, and when you have so many on the 9-11 commission saying the drama was misleading, guess you trust the guy on the sidelines who wrote it</p>
<p>interesting, the people with the real story, you ignore, but a screen writing, well, suddenly he is all truthiness…hahahahhahahahaha</p>
<p>It’s hard to tell with your comments but if your #223 was directed at me, I have not commented on this thread about the substance of “The Path to 9/11”. My comments on this thread pertain to other, related subjects. I did comment on a related thread that I thought ABC should not air materially false dramatizations, including the Berger “hang up” scene if it is untrue.</p>
<p>Further, in my opinion “hahahahhahahahaha” is not an effective retort.</p>
<p>you was the generic you, should have used the word ONE</p>
<p>sorry about the hahhahhahahhaha, but to take the word of a screenwriter and his defensiveness about his production above members of the 9-11 commission I find laughable…and anyone here bother to look up the producers of this drama…yes, they no had agenda whatsever…</p>
<p>and thnk you for judging my retort, having your opinion on that is so valuable…</p>
<p>9–11 or 9-11 commisson report…two very different things…nice try</p>
<p>AHN: So, Richard, you’ve seen the movie. What is your major objection to it?</p>
<p>RICHARD BEN-VENISTE (9-11 Commission member): My only concern is that, if – if they purport to present a docudrama based on the 9-11 Commission report, it should be accurate. And it wasn’t. It was fiction in some important respects, one of which was the suggestion that the United States, through its operative in Afghanistan, had in his sights Osama bin Laden a short distance away, and was ready to attack and kill him. And that just didn’t happen. So, that’s a major failing, in my view, in terms of the accuracy of this presentation.</p>
<p>(Keane has an agenda- his son and all- but so long as you think he is pure as the driven snow with his motives, who is anyone else to question him)</p>
<p>Is that Thomas H. Kean, Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, or Thomas H. Kean, well-paid consultant to the producers?</p>
<p>I haven’t been following this blow-by-blow, but my understanding was that Clinton had authorized killing bin Laden, and there never was a clear-shot situation. W/re the missile (1) I know a number of prominent conservatives have come to Albright’s defense over this, saying that it did not happen as portrayed in the film, and (2) what the heck were we supposed to do with Pakistan, an ally and also a nuclear power? Fire a missile that would look as if it was heading towards them without so much as a phone call? When they would assume, if we didn’t call, that it was an Indian missile? </p>
<p>I don’t know what Albright or anyone else did, but anyone who fired an anonymous missile toward Pakistan from the south would be endangering world stability and the interests of the United States a hell of a lot more than 9/11 did. And remember, this was long before 9/11, so the issue wasn’t risk nuclear war involving hundreds of millions of people to head off a terrorist attack on civilians in New York, it was risk nuclear war involving hundreds of millions of people to avenge a terrorist attack on a Navy battleship patrolling foreign waters. Even Jack Bauer would hesitate over that one.</p>
<p>Plus, notwithstanding the military’s PR for its “smart” weapons, we had not had a whole lot of success with surgical long-range missile strikes. Our experience in Somalia, and the Israelis’ experience in Gaza and Lebanon this summer, indicate that surgical missile strikes are not a sure-fire winner.</p>