September 04, 2006

ABC's "The Path to 9/11"

But what really caught my attention was when I clicked on a link on my sitemeter that showed all these liberal blogs in hysterics over it. Then I knew this was a gem worth checking into.-The Chatterbox Chronicles

When anything gets under the skin of the libs, that's a good enough endorsement for me to support it. I first heard about this over at Hugh Hewitt. Despite the pressure on ABC by the pro-Clinton Left, Hewitt doubts there will be any last minute editing changes because there have been a sufficient number of reviewers who have already seen it; and to make changes now under political pressure by the liberal Left, would have a negative backlash.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 02:14 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Libs hate it...I love it already

Posted by: Skye at September 04, 2006 04:22 PM (Np5ji)

2 I read today that ABC will air the mini-series commercial free. I hope so; last thing I want to see is Preparation H and erectile dysfunction ads every 10 mins.

Posted by: Indigo Red at September 05, 2006 11:45 PM (6HsUG)

3 Is your sole recommendation of Path to 911 based on it not being like by "Liberal Left"? This is a childish position. ABC's promotion appears to treat the movie as a documentary yet they claim otherwise. I believe treating this subject matter as entertainment is in poor taste. If you believe in your political position you should want to defend it with legitimate argument. I would be ashamed if I had to resort to this level in support of my position. I read many articles and had many arguments concerning F 9/11. The criticism's mostly came from misinterpreting jokes and problems with conclusions made. The facts presented were accurate and well researched. Whether you argee with F 9/11 or not, the movie respects it's position by honestly basing conclusions on fact. Path to 911 appears to have to conprimise truth to defend it's position. How can you see this as positive? Flame on!

Posted by: Richard at September 06, 2006 12:24 PM (0135J)

4 Is your sole recommendation of Path to 911 based on it not being like by "Liberal Left"? This is a childish position. It's said "tongue-in-cheek" to poke and prod humorless lefties such as yourself into delurking. ABC's promotion appears to treat the movie as a documentary yet they claim otherwise. I believe treating this subject matter as entertainment is in poor taste. It's a docu-drama, based in large part on the 9/11 Commission Report. If you believe in your political position you should want to defend it with legitimate argument. I would be ashamed if I had to resort to this level in support of my position. It was a light, quick post. Not a dissertation. I read many articles and had many arguments concerning F 9/11. The criticism's mostly came from misinterpreting jokes and problems with conclusions made. The facts presented were accurate and well researched. Can you give examples? Because that last sentence makes me question your credibility in this. I saw that work of fanciful fiction when it came out; it's a piece of crap. Not even good satire. Whether you argee with F 9/11 or not, the movie respects it's position by honestly basing conclusions on fact. I could respect it, if it did not twist and distort facts and outright lie and fabricate. Path to 911 appears to have to conprimise truth to defend it's position. How can you see this as positive? Michael Medved (yes a partisan like you and I) has seen the movie. Most of the liberal screech and hysteria over the ABC movie is based on ignorance from people who have not seen the movie. From what I have heard, the movie doesn't exonerate any Administration or political party from a share of the blame. What is dishonest about that? And the movie's focus is on what led us to 9/11; not the aftermath. Bush spent 9 months asleep before 9/11; Clinton had 8 years of being asleep at the wheel. I don't blame him anymore than I blame anyone. We were all, most of us, "asleep" and not paying attention. Look at who the actual people are that are involved in the movie, and you tell me that this is a rightwing film with a straight face. Flame on! :confused:

Posted by: wordsmith at September 06, 2006 12:44 PM (nrGCx)

5 Richard, if you're as convinced of Michael Moore's credibility regarding Fahrenheit 9/11 as you say allow me to suggest a viewing of FahrenHYPE 9/11. It's a pretty damning (and convincing) indictment of Moore's methods and selective story-telling (not to mention his flexibility with the facts). Enjoy.

Posted by: Gary at September 06, 2006 12:55 PM (PLHs9)

6 I have several questions for supporters of the Path to 911 show -- While we are at war and struggling to maintain the safety and respect of our country and our soldiers, why is it necessary to conflate events and facts about an event of such paramount importance to all of us? I appreciate how historical movies sometimes take poetic license with facts to increase the interest and drama of a production. But I would think that people are sufficiently interested in how we got to 911 that taking such license would not be necessary. Finally, apart from all the partisan wrangling and posturing, I have one question I really would like answered -- How will our country be served by airing this program?

Posted by: Eltay at September 07, 2006 11:44 PM (DlcvO)

7 How will our country be served by airing this program? Be happy to answer that question. See my post above titled "You Can't Buy This Kind Of Promotion". Hugh Hewitt makes it plain: "the most important reason to watch is to remind us about what it is we are fighting against and how serious the threat is." Democrats may want the American people to forget, but we need to understand how vicious, how relentless and how determined this enemy is. The saddest part is the reasons that Dems want to white-wash this: short term political advantage and the preservation of some kind of "legacy" for the Clinton Administration. Sick.

Posted by: Gary at September 08, 2006 07:59 AM (PLHs9)

8 To Gary, First, I will admit that the left has its fringe elements (e.g., Michael Moore), as does the right. I ask that we not let the extremes of both sides control the discussion. Second, I have had e-mail exchanges with Mr. Hewitt about the Path to 911 movie and, you may be surprised to know that I agree with him that we face a very serious threat that we must understand and confront. Third, it is incorrect to say that the Democrats want the American people to forget. We simply believe that the course charted by the current administration is not the proper way to deal with the criminal enemy that threatens us. We believe that continuing on our current course will only create a more violent and dangerous world far into the future. Let's discuss the issues, not draw up behind rigid, immovable ideological barricades. If it is indeed such a heinous enemy we face, we cannot afford to fight among ourselve while marching in ideological lock step, Both sides must be willing to listen and learn from the other. Fourth, I think it is fine to have a movie that helps us understand the threat we face. However, unless the facts of that movie are accurate, our understanding will be flawed. Bad information makes for bad policy. I say, "Make the movie and show it, but just make sure it is accurate." Lastly, I agree with you that protesting the movie too much just gives it greater status than it otherwise deserves. In the end, it's just a movie. Democrats have enough other political hay to make with other issues.

Posted by: Eltay at September 08, 2006 11:26 PM (DlcvO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
22kb generated in CPU 0.0309, elapsed 0.1339 seconds.
114 queries taking 0.1164 seconds, 231 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.