Sep 11 2006
Path To 9-11: Part Duex
Man, through the fourth hour the show was doing really well. The Clintonistas did not fair well in any of this. The first night pretty much mocked Tenet, Berger, Albright and Cohen. Much of it seemed a bit over the top in fact. I doubt Tenet was such a whiney whimp. Tonight I would not want to be Ambassador Bodine (Yemen) or the CIA’s Kessler (“I need details!”). They came off horribly in this film. I hope it was justified – I have my doubts. The last hour was pretty much a joke, sadly. I am sure O’Neill and all who died that day deserved better than the ending this film hoisted on all of us.
One thing is for certain, we can all tell that Richard Clark was a major advisor on the film. He was having some serious Al Haig moments in the end there. I just about turned it off when they had Dick calling from his car to direct Condi and Cheney to meet him! BTW, think they could have found an older actor to play Cheney? Sorry folks, but Cheney has a piercing stare – not a dead stare. Anyway, the way Condi and Cheney basically turned over the entire US government to Clark (in the movie) shows this was more Clark’s personal fantasy than a historical perspective of 9-11. I felt like I was watching Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible II (which was the “look at me, I am Tom Cruise” 90 minute horror show). It was just too much to see Cheney and Rice supposedly stunned, waiting on Dick’s every word, as he barked out orders to Gen Meyers to get the planes moving.
It’s too bad the film had such a corny ending. The director clearly played to the ‘dumb government leaders’ caricature too much (another indication this was more about Clark’s ego than anything else). The scenes in the ME were definitely the best and most rivetting. But all in all, the ending was so bad I doubt I will ever want to see it again. Thank goodness President Bush’s speech saved the evening.
Wow, havem’t seen the ending yet, recorded it and now don’t want to.
I don’t like Richard Clarke already. He became the computer security czar after this stint… and he was an idiot. I know that for a fact. Then he became the puppet for the Left that he became.
The real heroes are men and women on the ground who get things done. That said, Cheney and Rice are some seriously smart people. Clarke is not.
I do like the actor that played Clarke. Quite a decent character actor. Same guy who played the stapler guy in Office Space: Stephen Root.
Really looked like Clarke, too.
Hrrm, Clarke denounced the film:
“Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant, denounced the movie Monday as an “egregious distortion.””
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15488917.htm
“Egregious”… heh… what a clown. How sad he becomes the hero in this.
Really sick.
Whoa. sorry for the multiple post, but:
“”There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton administration officials as holding back the hard-charging CIA, FBI and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9/11,” he said. “The exact opposite is true.””
From the above article, quoting Richard Clarke.
That is surely a really venomous lie. Only the kind of nasty step down the worst of politicians would do.
I guess he is out of the business so he figures he can’t get any flak back… but kissing up to Clintons might somehow pay off down the road. Nasty snake.
As far as actors in this film goes, perhaps the least noted is the woman who played the roll of Ms. Albright is the mother of the guy who plays the part of Jack Bauer on 24. Yup Keifer Suttherlands mother. What a concept.
I watched it and I did think the Bush people got off better than Clinton’s people did. But yeah, Clarke was the guy with the mouth in the end. Now we know why he got fired. He did not know when to shut up.
I don’t want to sound like the hysterical Democrats who just dissed the film however and Bush did not end up looking that bad at all.
Did you notice that according to the film it was Clarke who suggested that the president take to the air? I wonder if this is true.
But overall I did not think it was that bad, after all it is a movie.
Living near enough to the Pentagon and being interested by the Democrats denouncements, my wife and I watched TV for the first time in two years. True, there was too much glorification of Richard Clarke and his denouncement of the film just before its showing is more typical of Richard Clarke than the character in the film. Some of the actors looked vaguely like the persons they portrayed, but it was too close in time to overlook the “near” characterizations. All those things said, we thought it was very well done. We intend to buy the DVD when it is available. It was good theater and we are impressed with the Writer-Producer. We look forward to more of his work.
The antenna came off the TV after the Path finished. It went back into a closet. We will check the internet again for news.
OleJim
I have satellite tv and my tv stays locked on cartoon network since my adult age handicapped son enjoys cartoons. Still I have to be watchful because after certain hours in the evening even they drift off to the deep end if he is up that long.
I have a gut feeling that many watched tv for the first time in a long time and it wasn’t picked up since the ratings system is based on the Neilson frequent watchers.
all in all a good production for a tv mini series. history will be very cruel to the clinton admin as we go forward. this series was a very small step in that direction. i’m sure that’s why the clinton’s did everything they could to get it scrapped. here on the east coast the movie was stopped for bush’s speech. totally “Rovian” !!
best line last night was from Massoud talking about getting arms etc “only Reagan understands”………….
Just finished part 1. my thoughts throughout were, is there anybody out there doing their job? You have to kinda wonder. I think we all know that the CIA didn’t do a good job preventing 9-11 and but this part portrays them as doing a reasonable job. But it sure makes the Clinton admin look terrible, but then my impression is that they really didn’t do as well as the movie portrays. I think they were actually (if that’s possible) even more incompetent than the movie shows.
Terrye:
“Did you notice that according to the film it was Clarke who suggested that the president take to the air? I wonder if this is true. ”
YES. This is true. Clarke wrote this in his book.
I do not remember what the lie was, but believe it was Farenheit 9/11 who lied about this… I remember even having to even de-brainwash my republican dad on this issue.
Real despicable.
“For Enforcement”:
“I think we all know that the CIA didn’t do a good job preventing 9-11 and but this part portrays them as doing a reasonable job. ”
The film portrays them as they are. It is unfortunate they get such a bad rep from the public as there are a lot of good people working there.
Wasn’t Cheney at DOD? And he need Clarke to tell him what to do? I don’t believe it.
Richard Clarke comes across as a know- it- all blowhard. I’ve met some of these people. They think that they are the center of all events. The only one (in their eyes) who are competent enough to handle any disaster. They will tell anyone who will listen about how competent and wonderful they were when such and such happened.
Pull, “The film portrays them as they are. It is unfortunate they get such a bad rep from the public as there are a lot of good people working there.”
I agree that there are probably a lot of good people working there, but I do believe the CIA has spent more time undermining the Bush Admin than they have undermining Al Queda.
Since they were so much involved in both the Kennedy assassination and coverup, I haven’t had a lot of admiration of them. I also know that their politics lean toward the Dems, so I can’t be a strong supporter.
So you might ask, if they lean Dem, why were they involved in the Kennedy assasination. Simple, to get someone further left in there.
footnote: I’m not claiming they did the assassination, the mob did that, but they were involved, especially in the coverup.
“Since they were so much involved in both the Kennedy assassination and coverup, I haven’t had a lot of admiration of them. I also know that their politics lean toward the Dems, so I can’t be a strong supporter.”
I would wonder how many in the CIA you think would have been involved in something like that. Would you really believe that was something which would involve the entire CIA. And if it involved so many people and was such a disreputable crime… why has no one ever come forward?
Say… this thing happen. Would it really have involved more then, how many people? And would all of those people really want to do such a deeply dishonorable thing?
I did read Moonie’s nephew’s book… where this is stated. There is a firm mob angle. But, was it really impossible for Oswald, an ardent Communist, to want to kill the President? Was it impossible for Jack Ruby to have wanted to kill Oswald for other reasons? Why, really, would a cover up ever have been needed, even if there was mob-Oswald connections?
As far as being “left”, JFK was left… sure, but not like the hippies were, not like those post-hippies have been… and as far as being anti-Communist goes… he was very well known for being anti-Communist. Oswald had every motive to kill him.
As far as Moonie’s nephew goes… he also had an unbelievable story in there about Marilyn Monroe being assassinated. Now his story about the mob financing JFK somewhat and having had ties with Joe Kennedy is believeable… but maybe he pushed all of that just a little, to be a little criminal, get a little thrill, make some extra money… ?
After all, what would sell well? A book on some long dead mobster hardly anyone remembers? Or a book claiming to tell all on Kennedy’s assassination by the mob and CIA… and how Monroe was murdered by having poison stuck up her butt by the mob?
Anyway, just something to consider…
Pull, I’m sorry I brought that subject up, I only did it as an aside as to why I’m not an admirer of the CIA, same as in them undermining the Bush Admin.
It’s very obvious you have read very little about the Assassination. Oswald was, of course, working with Naval Intelligence and was being used by the CIA in the Kennedy deal, that’s why he made the perfect patsy. He certainly wasn’t a ‘known’ communist, his excursion to Russia was simply to establish his bona fides by Naval Int.
How many people in the Agency would have been involved, maybe as many as 8-10. Not too many. It certainly wasn’t an Agency hit, it was done by the mob, as I said, with CIA involvement. CIA knew about it but couldn’t prevent it because of Cuba angle.
JFK would have been a conservative in today’s politics, that’s what I meant when I said they wanted someone further left. and Anti-communist. yes, very much so.
Kennedy was killed because of the move to destroy the mob, not because of being Dem or not.
They used normal mob scenario for high profile hits. Used a patsy(Oswald) who was immediately killed (by Ruby) so that the hunt for the ‘real’ killers would go no further.
Actually the Oliver Stone movie was reasonably close, and Jim Garrison was even closer.
If you want the real story on the Kennedy Assassination, you should read ULTIMATE SACRIFICE by lamar waldron and thom hartmann. It was published in 2005. I have read literally hundreds of books on the subject, beginning in 1964 and I would consider this to be the most likely scenario.
“It’s very obvious you have read very little about the Assassination. ”
Have I?
“How many people in the Agency would have been involved, maybe as many as 8-10. Not too many. It certainly wasn’t an Agency hit, it was done by the mob… Kennedy was killed because of the move to destroy the mob, not because of being Dem or not. ”
But, I already spoke of all of this… so I must not be that poorly read.
I believe the source I mentioned, Sam Giancana’s (Moonie or Moony) nephew was the one who first brought this issue out.
Mob involvement, of course, was always suspected because of Jack Ruby and Joe Kennedy.
It was Sam Giancana’s nephew, however, who finally painted a full picture here… of a mob angry at Kennedy for turning against it and not fulfilling his campaign promises.
If you check the references of that book you mention… Giancana will surely be there.
Regardless, I am not very interested in that and I had a double reason for pointing this out: you noted, “How many people in the Agency would have been involved, maybe as many as 8-10”.
RIght.
8-10.
Really, say 8-10 people were involved. How ever many years ago that was. 8-10 people out of all of the thousands who worked then at the CIA… and how many thousands more would work there.
Is it fair to depict any organization on the basis of a very, vew few bad apples?
The thing about a lot of these guys working for the intelligence services is their stories do not get to be told. They risk their lives everyday – many of them – and are forced to work horrendous hours for low pay.
I am just saying… I don’t think it is fair to just assume they are all rotten.
And, again, many of the leaks which have come from the government, many – if not most – actually have not come from the CIA. Even some leaks about the CIA have not come from the CIA, but from other agencies.
Short addendum of above post:
(I should note, again, I am not interested in this subject and I only read, however, the Giancana biography when it came out… because it was a subject I am interested in. )
Pull, my apology for my statement implying anything about what you have or have not read. Probably the only reason I even said anything about that was your statement that “Oswald was an ardent communist” when he was most likely the exact opposite of that.
Anyhow, I read all your comments on various subjects and almost always agree with what you say, and I certainly don’t disagree with what you say about the CIA. I’m sure most of the employees are hard working patriotic people, with a few bad apples mixed in.
Anyhow kindly accept my apology if I offended you, I had no intent to.
“For Enforcement”:
Heh, thanks. Yes, no, you are correct, I have not read much on the subject. No one knows everything and I am sure there are all sorts of things out there that is more then what it appears to be.
I am not offended… my major concern is just that we – conservatives – do not alienate good CIA. It may not seem like it, but there are hard core conservative CIA out there and, no doubt, they feel very alienated from the Left in this country… and the traitorous Left they have to deal with at work.
A lot of people work in those fields not because they are of the Left and want to somehow ruin America… but because they want to have a life where they are fighting bad guys… they want to be more then ordinary, they want to be heroes…
I would expect, from your – heh – nick, that you probably have a good grasp of that.
🙂