Part one was outstanding. A little too much exposition at times. But that could be some late editing due to what they took out as a result of the pressure from the left.
In fact, there were some sequences that it was pretty obvious they tacked on a few extra seconds here and there. But the story moved fairly well anyway, much better than we were led to believe by some critics.
Now for the controversy. I thought the entire sequence surrounding Osama’s “hideout” was a travesty. I see the screenwriter’s device – it was done to give all the arguments why they never gave the order to capture or kill Osama. I realize that the screenwriter tried to present a composite scene that examined the issues facing the government because there were, by last count, 8-10 chances that we had to get Bin Laden (or to be fair, attack a location we thought he was hiding at). There was simply no way to dramatize that many scenes and give the arguments for why we never pulled the trigger for each of them. Those arguments look pretty lame in hindsight. But the policymakers were not operating with the benefit of glasses that could see into the future. Their inaction was justifiable looking at it through their worldview.
And it was way over the top in blaming the policymakers for their failings. Some of the jibes about “courage” were insulting. Wahlberg’s character was so far out of his paygrade in criticizing his boss or the White House it’s unbelievable. And some of the criticism from other characters was gratuitous. The entire sequence could have been deep sixed and the film would not have suffered a bit.
As could the scene with Patricia Heaton busting in on Tenet’s meeting and weeping about how it was their fault the embassies blew up. Stupid and unnecessary.
But I fail to see why such a big stink was made about the Albright scene. She actually came off completely rational and made a strong case for why Pakistan had to be notified.
The film is not nearly as hard on Clinton as its going to be on Bush. That said, I thought that the Clinton government looked pretty competent in getting Yousef and the terrorist in Africa. And it’s obvious that Clark (the self serving bastard) had the right idea about Osama and what we were up against.
All in all, while not bending over backwards to deify the Clinton Presidency (probably why the left is so incensed), I thought that it was a fairly balanced portrayal of that crew’s efforts against terrorism – except where I note otherwise above.
The left certainly can’t complain when O’Neil spat out his dig at the Administration for treating the problem of terrorism as a law enforcement matter. They supported that approach then and they support it now – even though it makes their man look like a fool in retrospect.
I thought the acting was good, the writing not so much, but good direction kept the story moving nicely. I can’t wait to see how it played on lefty websites. Should be good for a laugh or two.
11:42 pm
Here’s an interesting cite that will have all the usual whining:
President Wants Senate To Hurry With New Anti-Terrorism Laws
http://tinyurl.com/tanu
2:31 am
[...] Roger Simon also wants to hope. Like many others Rick Moran is looking beyond blame, at solutions. [...]
4:13 am
Monday Morning Links
Sturgeon returning to North American waters. This is good. Good meat, good eggs, big fish, and remarkable critters. But Blue Crab Blvd. seems a bit afraid of them.Sen. Rockefeller wants Saddam back. Well, Saddam is still alive. LGF It is the most shamel
5:42 am
It was good, 24 like, but not as good as my favorite show, but 24 like and kept moving. It did show the clintoon’s good at law enforcement but times have changed, too bad the dems have not made that leap.
!!
The first part protected clinton as demanded, now lets all sit back and watch part 2 slam Bush in every way possible, it will be breathtaking, but the left are still gonna wine about this.
Heard they also showed the Bush assiniation in Toronto last night to an audience of about 1000 and it got a good reception, thats just great, they are shopping for a venue over here in which to show this hit piece, lets see how many conservatives call and threaten that entity’s LICENSE if they SHOW IT.
7:50 am
Rick, the Tenant scene is actually described in Ghost Wars by Steve Coll:
Less than two months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, two teams of al Qaeda suicide bombers launched synchronized attacks against two U.S. embassies in Africa. In Nairobi, Kenya, 213 people died and 4,000 were injured. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the toll was 11 dead and 85 wounded. Within months, the New York federal grand jury previously investigating bin Laden delivered an indictment of the Saudi for directing the strikes, among other alleged crimes.
At Langley’s Counterterrorist Center, some CIA analysts and officers were devastated and angry as they watched the televised images of death and rescue in Africa. One of the bin Laden unit’s analysts confronted Tenet. “You are responsible for those deaths,” she said, “because you didn’t act on the information we had, when we could have gotten him” through the Tarnak raid, one official involved recalled her saying. The woman was “crying and sobbing, and it was a very rough scene,” the official said.
8:04 am
I want to add that I remembered seeing that excerpt—it has stuck with me since I read it a few years ago. I can’t imagine being George Tenant, taking the emotional blame for the horrible result of a choice he had once thought sound. I wonder how it changed him.
It is the same thing I think about often with Bush, and actually ask some of my left-leaning friends when they criticize his NSA program, his CIA prisons, the Iraq war. What would you do if 9/11 happened on your watch, and you knew people blamed you for it? What if you blamed yourself? How far would you go to keep that from ever happening again?
8:48 am
As far as the scene at UBL’s camp, I’ll say it again that ABC should have been as accurate as possible about the closest the Clinton Admin. got to him to carry the gist of the 9/11 report. No more, no less. If we’re going to expect truth out of the leftards (which is alot to expect but not too much to ask), then we need to insist on the same ourselves. The major point is the true depiction of what we’re up against from AQ —no policy at issue, but rather univeral hatred of all things non-Muslim.
9:28 am
During the 1990’s I read a lot of stuff about Echelon and Carnivor survielence systems that people were writing about on the web.
The fact that Al-qaeda operatives were speaking Arabic, and in their own dialects narrowed at times to small geocentric areas, must have made the trail for gathering evidence very narrow for agents of any kind.
The film mentioned that these people “were learning fast” is the biggest under-statement I found in the film, and because those who are seeking to work within the contraints of their own laws, which they’ve sworn to uphold, always find themselves in catch-up mode.
12:44 pm
“As could the scene with Patricia Heaton busting in on Tenet’s meeting and weeping about how it was their fault the embassies blew up. Stupid and unnecessary.”
Small point Rick, but the scene you are describing was with Amy Madigan not Patricia Heaton.
We can “discuss” accuracy about the film until the cows come home. I’m sure that’s probably ALL some people want to talk about. Myself…I want to discuss the brazen and thuggish attempt at government censorship contemplated by some in Congress. That is the real story here. While it is not that surprising that they would do that, it is stunning how brazen they’ve become and how utterly contemptuous they are of our constitution.
In a few days, this movie will probably be mostly forgotten. I hope sincerely, that NOBODY forgets what was done to try to stop it from seeing the light of day.
In the end, they trotted out their “expert” Richard Clarke to get in his dig at the film. I really don’t recall Michael Moore allowing anyone 10 minutes to rebut his “documentary”
However, just my .02
Carol
12:46 pm
Path to 9/11 Part 1 was as boring as watching bread dough rise. Dry and hard to follow.
Hope the docu-drama ABC does on Bush when he leaves office is more interesting (and more accurate).