8 Comments Add your own

• 1. Safran  |  September 10th, 2006 at 7:57 pm

  I thought it was fine. It’s very “24″ influenced, and makes George Tenent the Jack Bauer of this story, which is obviously not the case.

  Look, this is a TV movie. Is anyone really surprised it isn’t “the truth?” Lots of hue and cry - as though politicians had never seen a Movie of the Week before.

• 2. Kerry  |  September 10th, 2006 at 8:04 pm

  I saw it last night on it’s New Zealand premiere airing. I thought it was good, except a lot of people today were saying, “Did you see that *documentary* last night”. So that makes it a little difficult to work out which bits are fact-based, and which bits are just entertaining. Sadly I’ll miss part II tonight… Will ABC be streaming it at all?

• 3. Patrick  |  September 10th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

  The Path to 9/11 is an ad mixture of good writing, staging, characterization and acting. It seems to be historically accurate. But - it is hot ‘journalism’.
  It is a useful tool for us all to use to come to terms with this issue:
  Is the activity depicted by the Islamist in “The Path to 9/11″ simply a crime - or is it an act ot war against all of us who enjoy the liberty and life style of ‘the west’.
  If it is simply a crime, now and it the future, we can be comforted by the ‘restraint’ shown by elected and appointed officials protrayed in the film.
  If it is a act of war against us then we need to make certain changes that would allow the cops, spooks and military to do more to prevent the enemy from acting.

  I hope we decide (collectively) that we are at war. I hope we make that decision, and take appropriate actions leading from it,
  sooner than later.
  p.

• 4. Swift Loris  |  September 10th, 2006 at 9:36 pm

  It was clearly conceived as a vehicle for blaming Clinton for 9/11. Scenes and dialogue were invented out of whole cloth to promote that idea.

  That’s certainly not a documentary and it isn’t really a docudrama, either. It’s a propagandrama.

  The famous “disclaimer” had the effect of *validating* the alleged truthfulness of the film, rather than acting as a caveat.

  Following the disclaimer, moreover, was a quote from the 9/11 commission report about how the commission did not attempt to assign blame–as if that applied to the film as well.

  Sorry, but I think the whole thing is profoundly and maliciously dishonest.

  (It isn’t inconceivable that the second part will at least balance the scales by putting an equivalent amount of blame on Bush, but I’m not holding my breath. And even equivalence would be dishonest.)

• 5. thewashingtonchannel  |  September 11th, 2006 at 5:12 am

  what?

  abc had something on last night???

  the 10 folks over my house were too busy watching cbs to even notice.

• 6. charlie  |  September 11th, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  I take everything that comes over the screen in my living room with much skepticism. However, an honest assessment of what truly happened leaves me feeling the 911 film was more on than off target. It’s unfortunate one side or the other can’t take the heat.

  We’re not two parties, but one country. The gathering storm was allowed to fester unabated for too long. That’s fact. So is our missing many chances to cut off the head of that virulent snake. One side couldn’t take action. The other took too much. In that sense, both parties have blown it.

  We are indeed at war. Whether you like him or not, Rumsfeld hit the nail on the head in today’s WSJ op-ed piece: “this is not a reactionary” enemy. These guys are on the hunt and we’re the prey.

  Who cares who blew it. We must face it now.

  I hope this movie (and that’s what it is) will bring more to the awareness that we won’t ever return to “how it used to be.”

• 7. Komeddyk  |  March 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

  Somebody using pheromons to attract women, whether is real it?
  Where they can be got?

• 8. Sam  |  January 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am

  Wow, thanks for the excellent information!

Leave a Comment

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed