Let’s start with this – miniseries almost invariably stink. Or are completely mediocre filler ranging from the pretentious to the pseudo-sexy. In particular, those done by our major networks are the kind of industrial entertainment product, made by diverse hands at the mercy of artistically talentless executives, that leaves me running to the Home and Garden Network (which I actually like – you occasionally learn something). These enterprises are about as far from La Docle Vita or The Bicycle Thief as you can get and still be (relatively )in the same medium.
So the continuing brouhaha over ABC’s 9-11 saga stikes me as an embarrassment for all concerned – Bill Clinton (who should keep his mouth shut), ABC (that should stick to sports events) and anybody, including me, for engaging in a discussion of this silly event. The 9-11 Commission was phony enough, but at least it consisted of a group of blowhard politicians doing what blowhard politicians do (posturing). But to take their conclusions seriously as the “source” of a movie is absurd. Their conclusions were a political compromise. (Well, come to think of it, that may be perfect for a miniseries, which is an artistic compromise in the first place… wait, sorry, scratch the word “artistic” and just make that compromise.) Time for the chattering and political classes to get some therapy and move on. Democrats and Republicans should both be sent to the woodshed for playing the blame game over 9-11 at this point. How humiliatingly stupid and self-destructive for all concerned.
UPDATE: Crix Nix Binny Pix.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. Ron:There is supposed to be some very good characterizations in the series, getting Rodney Dangerfield to play Bill is a real stroke of genius. They look alike, act alike, sound alike and both even play musical instruments, Bill the Sexaphone and Rodney the Hor-Monica.
This country is capable of anythng, it can withstand 8 years of buffoonery from the Clintons and even an attack on this country. Its truly is blessed, last time its enemies were goose stepping prigs with bloody hands and no sense of humor and sometimes it takes some time to stomp them in to the dirt. The goofey Islamo boy’s will be the same we just have to develop some pan-specific contagion that will make their genitals fall off and give the men a set of double D’s, won’t really hurt them but will turn them into females, don’t even think we have to spray it over them with the crop dusters; we just have to tell them we gave it to the Israeli’s.
Sep 8, 2006 - 4:08 pm 2. Captain Hate:“Let’s start with this – miniseries almost invariably stink. Or are completely mediocre filler ranging from the pretentious to the pseudo-sexy.”
Lonesome Dove was the exception to your rule, Roger.
Sep 8, 2006 - 4:54 pm 3. Barry Dauphin:I despise the vacuous, self-serving pontifications of our “esteemed” co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission. It is as if they present themselves as all knowing, albeit with 20/20 hindsight.
This documentary apparently had a lot of input from Richard Clarke, a guy whose acumen into certain aspects of terrorism is rivaled only by his failure to recognize that there is more happening in the world than he is or could possibly ever be aware of. Although there is something to his if only they had listened to me complaints, there is considerably less to it than he realizes. He confuses his knowledge about terrorism with the kind of knowledge it takes to grasp history, geopolitics, economics, sociology, psychology, etc. He is a savant who mistakenly believes he is a wise man.
Whatever the merits or demerits of this version of events, let it air as is and receive whatever praise and criticism it engenders. Pulling it off the air will creatte a temporary tempest, but the public will move on. We should have dramatizations of these events, as movies and docudramas have a way of making some sense out of a chaotic mass of information. Movies and docudramas will invariably oversimplify, even when done well. However, when done well, they may emphasize important aspects of events to create a vivid and compelling experience. When done not so well, they can still sometimes be useful.
When done in the manner of Ollie Stone’s JFK, they have the capacity to stir debate. For example, I think Stone’s viewpoint suffered from too many nights of coke and doobies. But it was compelling enough to get people talking about the conspiracy stuff, resulting in some of the best debunking of that stuff. Citizens should be asking intelligent questions about geopolitics post 9/11. It would be great if even a schlocky docudrama could lead to more curious discussions (and I don’t mean with Ted Koppel). I’m certainly not holding my breath for that.
Sep 8, 2006 - 5:26 pm 4. Terrye:Yes, it is getting rather silly isn’t it?
Wasn’t Richard Clarke the guy who was so worried about the Y2K thingee? How soon they forget.
Sep 8, 2006 - 5:32 pm 5. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):While constantly playing politics with the blame game is certainly annoying and unimportant, learning from pre-9-11 mistakes needs to happen. If this product helps in that regard, then we need it.
We will never know what Bush would have done in the ’90s in the face of rising Islamofascist terrorism, but we do know what Clinton did, and it was ultimately very damaging to our security.
We also know what Carter did, which was to hand Islamofascism its first big prize and validation of its power – Iran, and then show how weak we were by his reaction to their invasion of sovereign US territory (the embassy in Tehran) and their other acts of war associated with that event. This while he and the Democratic congress were eviscerating our intelligence capabilities and allowing another evil – Russian communist imperialism – to run rampant all over the world.
A very telling anecdote is Carter’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan: prevent our athletes from participating in the Moscow Olympics. Wow! I’ll bet that really hurt! And this from a military veteran Democrat.
One lesson that is pretty clear by now, but not if your only source of information is the MSM: Democrats are dangerously incompetent in National Security matters. The last 3 Democratic presidents, and the consistent actions of Democrats in Congress since at least 1974, show that clearly.
A fundamental cognitive failure that permeates their party – they simply do not understand, intellectually or emotionally, humanity.
At a deep level, they cannot comprehend evil – that it is here, that it has always here, and that none of their utopian ideas have lessened it. Their neo-Marxist instincts fail to explain all ills (e.g. much terrorism is NOT caused by repression and poverty). They cannot understand that real danger is from people truly evil (today’s Nazi’s – the Islamofascists), rather than the imagined evil of the Bushitler. They completely fail to understand how religion affects the world, especially Christianity and Islam.
Their neurosis of multiculturalism manifests as contempt and hatred for western civilization, while crippling their ability to even criticize those who would enslave and kill them and their children. This dangerous idea system leads them to feel guilt even condemning those who viciously violate many of the causes that, on the surface, the Dems hold so dear – feminism, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (or from religion), non-violent behavior, tolerance, intellectual progress.
Just as they cannot imagine sending their children to defend the United States that they despise, they cannot possibly grasp the thinking of those who rejoice in the opportunity to die in the act of killing infidel women and children.
The modern Democratic party is quite literally insane.
…..
Given how well the MSM has covered for the Dems, and deflected the topic always into the Bushitler narrative, a movie, even un-artistic, which dramatizes the cluelessness of that bunch of high-IQ fools, and how their fundamental world view predestined that cluelessness, would be a public service – not because we give a fig about Clinton’s “legacy” – but because the populace needs to understand Democrats in the realm of defending us against the real existential threats to our civilization, our ideals and our very people.
Sep 8, 2006 - 5:37 pm 6. Neo:When I came across this interview my jaw nearly dropped to the ground.
Q: I mean, isnít it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?
KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether ó whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally ó whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.
It’s not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute.
Sep 8, 2006 - 6:55 pm 7. David Thomson:What was Bill Clinton and his buddies thinking? They would have been better off joking about the series. Instead, they have inadvertently hinted to many Americans that there is something to hide. This is especially true if your name is Sandy Berger.
Sep 8, 2006 - 7:16 pm 8. heather:well, I am going to watch the miniseries, if someone will take me in (I don’t have access to anything other than CSpan.)Massood questioning the manhood of the Clintinoids will be worth the whole 6 hours.
As to HGTV, it is TERRIFIC. There is one program called “Neat”… and then there is Holmes on Homes… and all those interior decorating things – kind of like Cinderella, only REAL. Watching HGTV is one of the best things I do when I go visit relatives in cities. Really.
Sep 8, 2006 - 7:41 pm 9. onecent:Fair enough. Let’s start with a clean slate, no blame towards either party for 9/11. I’m ok with that.
But, then, let’s examine both parties starting the clock on 9/12/01. Five years have passed and what the heck have the Democrats done in that time frame? Have they proposed a better plan than Bush in confronting rather than retreating from the Islamofascism threat? Any plan? Heck, have they even used the word Islamofascism yet? At least, Bush has recently.
The world around us is being engulfed by Islamofascism in places like Darfur, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines where no grievances against America or the west can be blamed. This cancer has no limits.
God spare us if the Democrats ever get into the Commander-in-Chief position and/or take back Congress. I think the many in the public are smart enough to retreat from the MSM seeing them as the Useful Idiots that they are. It’s the not very savvy uninformed voters tuned into our lame MSM that worry me.
Sep 8, 2006 - 8:41 pm 10. Lem:I want it banned. (not for the reasons you may think, bear with me)
People predisposed to watching anything 9/11 already “know” as close as they are going to know the relevant narrative in dispute. By banning the movie you could end up elevating it to cult status and get it seen by people who were not predisposed to seeing it to begin with. The path to 9/11 gets a banned rating; it makes the underground lists of banned books & films to be shown in colleges and universities. (I can dream too)
By banning it you make it watch-able even if is in a William Hung kind of way.
More people “know” about the Lee Harvey Oswald lone gunman controversy not from reading the Warren Commission Report or researching microfilmed news articles at the library, but from the aura of conspiracy, the curiosity surrounding the many theories of what happened. An accidental knowledge of sorts.
Perhaps this is not the best way to convey accurate information. But, it may result that by crying wolf the Clintons end up shedding more light on it, raising people’s curiosity. (ditto David Thomson)
By the time the vail of “the banned 9/11 movie” is lifted, more people will have seen it than if you show it now amoung all the other 9/11 aniversary crap.
Remember, in the end its not the lie, it’s the cover up that gets them.
Sep 8, 2006 - 9:13 pm 11. syn:Blame Islam for causing this war.
Sep 10, 2006 - 7:51 am 12. Pierre Legrand:Havent been able to get anyone to link to this rant so this is as good a place as any to let it rip. Roger I don’t often disagree with you but I do so vehemently now. My reasons follow.
Perfect, being the enemy of the good, freezes us into silence. ABC Path to 9/11
Link above
This hits the nail right on its head. God it hurts to approvingly quote a left wing blog?but the left knows how to treat allies.
We finally have the perfect vehicle to tell the broad public a story that has NOT been told yet and instead of backing the producers up we have the Right Wing measuring a self declared Dramatization against reality. And on the basis of it not achieving perfection a bunch of them run screaming off the cliff. It is hilarious?almost. To these conservatives if perfection is not achieved in the telling of the story of Clinton era mistakes then it is better not to tell the story at all.
I must have missed the part where the otherside (our side) of the story has been told so well by the MSM that we can now be picky about how the stories are told. So now we have gone from wishing the Mainstream Media might sometimes tell the otherside of the story to demanding that if they are not able to recreate reality not tell the story at all. Yea that makes a whole lot of sense. Better not to hear how this wasn?t all the doing of the Bush administration if it means we compress events. Better not to hear how we dropped the ball for years before President Bush got into office rather than to make the Clintonistas a bit uncomfortable by not being able to re-recreate a reality that shifts everytime the Democrats and the Left tell it.
If ABC pulls the movie it won?t only be because of the actions of the left wing but also because of the actions of these folks. We didn?t support them when they needed it.
The problem is when perfect, being the enemy of the good, freezes us into silence. There is absolutely no way to recreate the reality that existed over the time this movie dramatizes. Do we then avoid telling the story because we cannot have it perfectly right? Do we imagine that the Democrats and the left are avoiding telling an imperfect tale? Do we really believe that the general public will understand they are not hearing both sides of the story if our side refuses to utter a word that is not perfection? Doesn?t anyone understand that instead of believing they are not hearing both sides of the story the general public believes it must be the truth since we refuse to tell our side?
The truth is Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright were in fact extremely timid in prosecuting the war on terror. Does the right believe otherwise? The truth is Sandy Berger and the Clinton Administration did in fact pass on attempts to assassinate Bin Laden (ht Macs Mind ). Does the right believe otherwise?
We treated ABC shabbily. It was almost as if a bad child having finely done something good but not perfect came to their family expecting to get a pat on the head and instead got a kick in the ass. Thanks guys.
Sep 10, 2006 - 9:50 am 13. Orson2:The reflexive bashing of a TV product by critics is no surprise. Some creatures genuflect instead of thinking things through.
It is the reminding that we’ve failed to think through the aims, paths, and continuous motives of our enemies that makes “The Path To 9/11″ salient and arresting.
We were warned. We ignored the warnings. And in this actually surprisingly good mini-series, we are reminded of the ironic death of John O’Neill in the WTC collapse: he worried, foresaw, and acted to prevent our future from turning worse before we would heed the call.
Better late than never. This is why I will buy “The Path To 9/11″ DVD: to share our history and bring the benighted into the fold, which Roger despairs over elsewhere. Perhaps he shouldn’t. Perhaps moving pictures are worth a million words. He used to believe it
Sep 11, 2006 - 1:51 pm