Video: “Path to 9/11″ Update: Side-by-side comparison (Bumped)
posted at 10:41 pm on September 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Disclaimermania!
I’ll post the controversial scene here later if/when it airs as well as anything goofy from the very special impromptu “Nightline” they’ve cobbled together for 10:30. In the meantime, consider this an open thread for “Path to 9/11,” how much you hate the nutroots, or whatever else is on your mind this anniversary eve. Highlights of the new AQ video will be posted in the other thread within the hour.
Here’s a quote to get the ball rolling: “Berger, Freeh later thought, was not a national-security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press.”
Update: Edited vs. unedited. They chopped quite a bit, but you still get the gist.
Update: Johnny Dollar has audio of Michael Scheuer and Ken Timmerman dismantling Clinton. Scheuer says whatever you may think about the drama component of this docudrama, the “docu” part is dead on. Timmerman lays the blame not at Clinton’s feet, but at someone else’s. And I don’t mean George Tenet.
Update: Ms. Underestimated has video of the fingerpointing on Nightline.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
I’m watching the mini-series the Democrats and Clinton lawyers didn’t want me to see.
It’s amazing the Dems let them slip in the “Allah Ackbar” lines and allowed the network to identify the hijackers’ countries of origin. I was expecting to see captions saying “random perpetrator, possibly asian, who was misunderstood blah blah blah.”
Dave Shay on September 10, 2006 at 8:22 PM
Thanks, ALLAHPUNDIT! I use DirecTV Satellite and don’t(refuse to) subscribe to broadcast TV. So I’m watching the internet to keep me informed. Let ‘er rip!
petefrt on September 10, 2006 at 8:35 PM
myself
petefrt on September 10, 2006 at 8:36 PM
I’m just surprised they didn’t transform the terrorists into, I don’t know, eastern-European neo-nazis.
Matt on September 10, 2006 at 8:40 PM
HA! Love the Janet Reno reference just now.
Dave Shay on September 10, 2006 at 8:46 PM
Plenty folks have seen Part I. But I have to worry about Part II, the Bush part. Has Part II been viewed too?
And then there’s “Nightline”, another ringer maybe.
petefrt on September 10, 2006 at 8:47 PM
Interesting flash of the disclaimer 90 minutes into the movie.
flyboy777 on September 10, 2006 at 9:35 PM
Did the disclaimer take the place of a ‘taboo’ scene?
Mike O on September 10, 2006 at 9:37 PM
If anyone’s interested, I have my own personal rant about this that I was working on before the movie started… I’ve actually missed a lot of it because my brother came over to check out the bite I got from the neighbor’s dog today, but I’m back to watching now…
Anyway, check it out if you’re interested. A slightly more defined pre-movie analysis of the situation. I’ll be working on finishing the post up later with links to all over HotAir’s great coverage since the beginning of this controversy.
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 9:42 PM
Finally… they’ve just shown Tenent and the Burglar.
Ooooh, now the liberal hand-wringing is starting!
Dave Shay on September 10, 2006 at 9:51 PM
And there’s the big edit!!!
D_bot on September 10, 2006 at 9:56 PM
That was a pretty big edit. However, the movie still show how feckless, incompetent and risk averse the Clinton Admin was.
ordi on September 10, 2006 at 9:59 PM
They totally cut out the parts with the men on the ground outside the house… that is what gave feeling to the scene.
Enoxo on September 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM
Looks like the scene didn’t make it.
Oh well.
So far, this is damning as hell to the Clinton administration; with or without the scene.
This is definitely a study in political correctness and ass covering.
Nice line from Massoud pretty much sums it up: “Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?”
Regardless of the criticism Bush receives, tomorrow night, the Clintonistas are definitely responsible for 95% of whatever bin Laden did. Period.
On a positive note, it’s good to see Lipton and Guarnere are back.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:04 PM
EWWW!!! Albright sighting!
Must… gouge… eyes… out…
Dave Shay on September 10, 2006 at 10:06 PM
Wow! Clinton giving Pakistan a heads up on the missle strike, and being defending by Albright is pretty friggin’ damning.
Moreso, I dare say, than any Berger scene.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:15 PM
Man, my biggest beef with accuracy is the actor playing KSM… Why such a good looking guy, when he really looks like this? I know we don’t have Belushi, but you tellin’ me Ron Jeremy wasn’t available?
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 10:19 PM
When is the scene when Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld and the rest of the Illuminati and the Free Masons plan 9/11? I hope we at least get to see Sandy Berger stuffing documents in his pants and socks.
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 10:20 PM
Heh. Anyone else thinking about selling their Casio stock, first thing tomorrow morning?
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:25 PM
They were too busy planting bombs in the New Orleans dikes to appear in this film. ;)
Dave Shay on September 10, 2006 at 10:29 PM
Another thing about the Burglar scene I noticed… afterwards, in the preview clips, there was a portion that showd Clinton testifying for his scandal that was removed.
Enoxo on September 10, 2006 at 10:32 PM
“Is God proud of you?”
A stronger case for waterboarding, I have yet to see.
This flick is making the Patriot Act more and more look like a good idea.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:35 PM
hey ya’ll, as I said earlier, I missed a bunch when my brother was here, I guess including the Bush speech… was the speech worth catching?
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 10:42 PM
Speech is tomorrow, RW.
Allahpundit on September 10, 2006 at 10:43 PM
This was very prescient, long before 9/11 happened. I live close from one of the biggest spies this country is fortunate to have. In 1996 this was authored/published, in desperation at the demise of the agency during the Clinton Admin.
Entelechy on September 10, 2006 at 10:46 PM
The Nightline follow up is interesting. Some 911 Commission apologist states that it’s better to save civilians that hang out near terrorists than it is to save Americans.
Nice.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM
Bin Laden had 2 whole tanks, Dick?
2?
The US military is going to get upset by a dude with 2 entire tanks?!
Anyone else want to vomit as the Clintonistas spin this all around?
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:50 PM
My bad, obviously that would make sense but for some reason I misunderstood something today and have been under the impression that he was to break in tonight. Thanks AP.
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 10:50 PM
Shocking! Dick Clark is a correspondent for Nightline….. gay.
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 10:51 PM
So Clark is pushing the blame onto Tenet?
Did Nightline try to contact Tenet to verify this?
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:52 PM
So, ok .. if Clark’s mission was to continually bomb the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, but Tenet said no ..,. could Dick go to BillJeff and have BillJeff make the decision?
Fuck Clark. Friggin’ douchebag.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Two whole tanks?
Well. That explains everything.
daveintexas on September 10, 2006 at 10:54 PM
They should have titled this Nightline special, “Richard Clark covers his ass”.
D_bot on September 10, 2006 at 10:56 PM
I thought the movie was disjointed. I don’t think most Americans who don’t keep up with this stuff really could follow along well. It did make Clinton and the Dems look bad, but not so horrible that they feel they should threaten to pull ABC’s license! It’s so surreal!!
I mean there was nothing that none of us here didn’t know. They screwed up. That’s it. I guess they were afraid that Americans might discover how badly.
Rightwingsparkle on September 10, 2006 at 11:00 PM
RW – the scary part is that anyone who’s heard the Dem’s braying about the airing of this flick might see this as rightwing propoganda and discount Clinton’s bungling.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 11:02 PM
I watched the movie but I am not watching Nightline. Is there anyone on for balance or is it all Clintonistas attempting to cover Clinton’s ass?
ordi on September 10, 2006 at 11:05 PM
It turned out to be pretty good. I am sure the left are going bonkers right now.
zerodamage on September 10, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Ordi …, is that a rhetorical question?
Cuz, it might as well be.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 11:05 PM
Hmmm. Interesting. Red bandanas on AA Flight 11 hijackers.
It is known that red bandanas were worn by the hijackers on United Flight 93.
Egyptian Islamic Jihad mujahedin wore red bandanas during attacks in Egypt in the early and mid 90’s.
What was Zawahiri’s symbolic intent?
ganeshpuri89 on September 10, 2006 at 11:07 PM
Overall, I found the whole near-three hours excellent. A lot of what was in the movie was factual or a good representation of it, and anyone who has read the volume of books out there on how the Clinton admin bungled counterterrorism operations knows it.
I didn’t, however, like the little Nightline segment, showing Richard Clarke passing the blame buck to George Tenet. I’m sick of this guy looking like a ‘hero’ – he’s not.
SisterToldjah on September 10, 2006 at 11:07 PM
I appreciated the first half. Tommorow night’s second half will also be good. If the second half hammers Bush a bit, it won’t be any worse than what the Democrats have been doing for 6 years. He’s tough enough to take criticism. Think I’ll slip over to Kos to see how the other half whines.
Doug on September 10, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Yo.
No it wasn’t. Silly me, I figured they MIGHT surprise us.
ordi on September 10, 2006 at 11:14 PM
I am the Frito Bandito!
ordi on September 10, 2006 at 11:16 PM
As for Bush’s responsibility, I decry bullshit.
Clinton had about 8 YEARS to do something about bin Laden.
Bush had about 8 MONTHS.
Even that’s being generous since the time which should have been spent organizing a new administration was stilted by Gore’s electoral hissy-fit.
Not to mention the partisen bullshit that immediately followed Bush taking office.
Stating the obvious but needing to vent: At least Bush had the balls to strike back. Clinton stood by and let us take hit after hit after hit.
Bush thought 1 was enough.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 11:20 PM
Ordi, in ABC’s defense (ugh), if one party of the government was threatening my business, I guess I’d toss ‘em a bone, too.
Considering the Dems don’t have a leg to stand on, intimidation is the best crutch they can muster to keep them from having to pony up to their foibles.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 11:23 PM
I’m afraid you’re right. And the sad part is this movie seemed to go pretty easy on them, considering the terrible truth that could have been told:
… for starters. Bottom line? Even if they left the scenes in that they cut, they still let Clinton off the hook. I’m still so effing pissed about the lack of discussion and reporting on Able Danger by the way.
RightWinged on September 10, 2006 at 11:39 PM
Part one was pretty entertaining.
If I was making this movie, I’d show Bush and Gore pandering to the Muslims about how profiling at the airport must stop, during the 2000 campaign, to show how absolutely out of touch we were about the Islamo threat.
Perchant on September 10, 2006 at 11:40 PM
RW – there’s plenty to be effing pissed about, Able Danger might have been a little more than people could process, though.
I actually think the movie was fairly even handed – even with the censoring.
What I find interesing is that a big meme for lefties is that “the system” is broken or that the government is all f’d up. The corruption, the scandel and the likes of which the Bush admin has been constantly charged with does exist. It’s just that it existed with Clinton, too.
And, while Bush is at least trying to clean up the mess, the Dems continue to find cause to keep shitting on the rug.
yo on September 10, 2006 at 11:49 PM
I missed Richard Clarke, but maybe a re-read of this would help him:
eagles5 on September 10, 2006 at 11:50 PM
Sorry, here it goes:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115085,00.html
eagles5 on September 10, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Nice one, eagles5:
Based on Clark’s statement, and the fact that 9/11 did occur, Clinton’s policy was failed – if Bush had made any mistake, it was following a policy which Clark had sway in developing.
Hm.
Then again, like I said, Clark’s a douchebag, so should anyone give a toss what he says?
yo on September 11, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Good call on that eagles5… I dug that up earlier wanting to post it but forgot all about it… Very fitting now that Clarke got the soapbox after the movie.
Good point yo. I would wager that not even 2/3 of the country have ever heard of Able Danger. Never the less I still think the edited or unedited version of this thing went way to easy on clinton.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 12:12 AM
From a Canadian “liberal” I saw on one forum commenting on the the Path to 9/11 movie:
“I think this movie was a bad idea to begin with. It doesn’t honour the victims in any way. Left a bad taste in my mouth, especially when this is being aired during the 5th anniversary of 9/11. This movie doesn’t bring any joy or pay tribute to any victims or their families. This movie blew chunks.”
Though I didn’t see it. Working papers due tomorrow! What this idiot didn’t think about is that this is a two part series. Will the movie pay tribute to the victims at the end of part II? How dumb would ABC be to not pay tribute to the victims?
Kokonut on September 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM
That “Canadian liberal” thought this was supposed to be a feel-good movie?
If the film leaves a bad taste in your mouth over the misplaced priorities and cowardice of President Clinton and his team, it seems to me it’s made it’s point very well. I don’t see why it needs to pay tribute to the victims, that can be done in other ways.
eagles5 on September 11, 2006 at 1:10 AM
I admit, I missed the second disclaimer in the middle of the movie. I don’t have any problem with them putting up the disclaimer, considering the crap being flung their way.
I was surprised to find that it was shown without commercial interruption, and without some huge commercial before or after saying “Path to 9/11 brought to you by…”
All in all, tonight’s half was quite good. I only hope I can find someone to record tomorrow night’s, as I have work :(
theholyhermit on September 11, 2006 at 1:19 AM
eagles5, very well said. It doesn’t leave a good/bad taste – it enrages! And that’s the only thing it should do!
Here’s something else which enrages, from the Ms. Underestimated commentary:
And here’s something which delights, from same site:
And what grates on the nerves is the gal playing Ms. Albright. Ughhhhh – the hair on my back is still having a hard time recovering…
Entelechy on September 11, 2006 at 1:27 AM
A random-esque thought, but as the disclaimer goes …, I wonder if ABC is thumbing their noses a bit at Clinton’s lawyers.
I mean, the only reason I (or possibly anyone else) watched the show was because of the controversy. The filmakers actually got their point out more effectively BECAUSE of the stink. Take the scene out, if you’d like, but we all know what was taken out, and why (but they’re leaving the Lewinsky reference in there, dammit – cuz it’s relavent).
ABC chucking up that disclaimer may just be a stern reminder of common sense. In short: “Relax. It’s just a movie.”
Did Farenheit911 have any sort of disclaimer?
When all is said and done, I think, now, that the Dems really shot themselves in the foot. Again.
BTW – did anyone catch Koppel on Discovery? I suffered through the head of the ACLU (putz!) and Soros …, but couldn’t deal with the litany of weak, tired and sketchy criticsm and had to turn it off.
yo on September 11, 2006 at 1:58 AM
Thanks, AP for doing the side by side comparison of the cuts. I did one too, before yours showed up, but yours are higher quality and better set up… So I won’t even bother to link to mine..
All in all, I think ABC did a good job… I’m actually surprised they didn’t either cut out the full half hour of clinton admin related stuff or pull the film entirely.
Even though what ABC actually aired was still pretty damning on Clinton and his minions, even the original cut was easier on him than he deserved from what really happened during his watch. If they hadn’t compressed all 8 times Clinton allowed Bin Ladin to escape into one fairly mild five minute scene, heads would actually be exploding over at DU, rather than the mere foaming at the mouth that is only slightly worse than usual.
We still have to get through tomorrow’s episode though. Hopefully they won’t slam President Bush any more than REALITY, rather than BDS, would indicate he deserve.
LegendHasIt on September 11, 2006 at 2:00 AM
Entelechy,
Madelaine Albright will probably wait until she’s in France, or some other enemy country, before she publicly condemns the film and “corrects” the history.
eagles5 on September 11, 2006 at 2:00 AM
I would go a step further, and point out that the President did not remove nearly enough Clinton people in sensitive positions fast enough. Somethmes he is too good of a guy, and by giving those persons a chance to prove themselves he left the door wide open for faults that he would later be blamed for. I would expect to see that reflected in tomorrows continuation.
All in all, I thought it was a pretty fair enterpretation of the events [so far], and if anything, they shyed away from connecting the dots to the head Cigarman.
Was there anything about the Gorlick Wall in the movie? If so, I missed it.
DannoJyd on September 11, 2006 at 2:30 AM
Anybody notice that it was LOUIS FREEH (and not a Clintonista) who gave the go ahead to grab that Ramzi terrorist in Pakistan? They waited and waited and it was FREEH who came through with the authorization.
pjcomix on September 11, 2006 at 7:49 AM
They really listened to the nutroots on this one. Right down to correcting the spelling of Madeleine Halfbright’s first name after a posting on Kos yesterday. Despite the edits, the stained dress still screams through.
Valiant on September 11, 2006 at 8:20 AM
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are NO ELECTION POLLS released by the MSM tomorrow or Wednesday, given that would be the delay period following a Sunday night poll.
chsw
chsw on September 11, 2006 at 8:44 AM
“Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?” I thought that was pretty powerfull stuff. I was happy to see something like that on prime time broadcast tv for a change, with or without the cuts.
modifiedcontent on September 11, 2006 at 8:45 AM
I thought the docu’drama’ was very good. Of course I’d like to know what they cut out. O’Neile, Freeh and Mousaad (sp) came out as the most ’sane’ people in it. I wonder if the female, Phillipino officer was real; she had to be. And I wonder if that CIA/FBI woman who marched into the meeting and blamed the whole group for the Khobar Towers incident was real. That was a very condemning scene to me.
jatfla on September 11, 2006 at 8:54 AM
At least ABC shows how incredibly evil the islamofascists are. I watched last night and it was very compelling. I’m amazed that the Stalinist Clintonistas “allowed” the network to go through with airing it.
Mojave Mark on September 11, 2006 at 10:15 AM
OK, I’m going to stir the pot here. But, I just did a bit of trolling over at DU and of course they are saying that the whole scene of Massoud and the CIA guy waiting outside of OBL’s compound did not happen. so, I found the PDF version of the 9/11 report online, read the details surrounding this operation, and came to the same conclusion. Here are some of the passages from the report. you can read it for yourself. refer to the report, pages 111-114.
It was clear to me after reading this section of the report that there was NOT an incident where we were actually READY to go in and get OBL. Not to take the nutroot’s side, but I can see how they find the docudrama incendiary. BUT, i do feel that the docudrama overall presented an accurate, general feeling that the clinton administration had no plan to kill OBL or destroy al-qaeda. They were more concerned with tensions between Pakistan and India, not OBL. they just didn’t see him as a real threat. That’s what I got out of last night’s show.
pullingmyhairout on September 11, 2006 at 10:42 AM
pullingmyhairout (and please don’t do that!!): you restore my faith in humanity!!
I will be interested in seein what ratings this pulls–life is a funny old dog–after all this angst, the end game may end up being that the Path to 9/11 couldn’t compete with the NFL and the Manning brothers!
honora on September 11, 2006 at 11:12 AM
pullingmyhairout, you’re talking about one specific incident, there are plenty of otherse. Again, Billy Jeff’s own words:
That’s the sound of a ball being dropped. Don’t be fooled in to believing libs have successfully spun this one, because there’s no spinning it.
As for quoting the 9/11 report, I think you made a mistake in doing that. The 9/11 commission was a joke who is avoiding Able Danger like the plague… why? Could it have anything to do with Gorelick? I just can’t trust anything out of the 9/11 commission as being the whole and accurate story, because it wasn’t. I still am frustrated that no one cares to know what documents Berger stole and destroyed. Oh boy, he got a fine and can’t go to the archives for a few years, big effin’ deal. Why did he cram documents in his pants and socks like a nutcase and later destroy them? The commission was just about coming up with a way for everyone to cover their asses, esp. the Clinton Corportation.
RightWinged on September 11, 2006 at 11:18 AM
I noticed that too and it stuck out. Maybe this was an indication of how much the Clinton WH viewed this whole thing as a law enforcement problem. Think about it . . . treating it as a law enforcement problem put more layers of protection between Clinton and the responsibility for making decisions.
Labamigo on September 11, 2006 at 11:21 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »