The Path to 9/11

With the Fifth anniversary of 9/11 on the horizon, ABC will be airing a two part series called The Path to 9/11. It will air Sunday, September 10th at 8pm EST & Monday, September 11th, at 8pm EST.

It stars Harvey Keitel as FBI Agent John O'Neill and will follow the events leading up to that fateful morning.

The miniseries will take viewers behind closed doors at the CIA, the FBI and the White House and into the world of Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Sandy Berger and CIA Director George Tenet, among others. Viewers will follow the international manhunt for elusive bomber Ramzi Yousef (Nabile Elouahabi, Eastenders) and meet several key players in the 9/11 saga, including: John O'Neill, the career FBI agent who spent years zealously chasing bin Laden; then-ABC newsman John Miller (portrayed by Barclay Hope, Stargate SG-1), who interviewed bin Laden; Emad Salem and other key Muslim informants who aided the U.S.; and Ahmed Shah Massoud, commander of the Northern Alliance, a crucial American ally and the person bin Laden feared most.

abc.go.com...

Thoughts? Opinions?

I saw the frst episode (tonight - Sunday) and I loved it. It is about time the truth about Bill Clinton's blunders comes out.

No wonder Clinton had a fit when he saw it.
The movies even shows how he blew a medical factory just to distract from his " I did not have sexual relations with that woman" case.

I can't wait to see the second episode and see if ABC has the testicuels to keep the documentary truthfull to the end, or if they will spin it at the last moment.

And the interesting thing is that this documentary was toitally based on the 9/11 comition report who according to the Demcorats is a truthfull indenpendent comission

I wonder if after this the Bush hate mongers will retract their lies and admit that Clinton dropped the ball on the USA and the world or if they will just keep inventing conspiracies, to avoy having to admit they were wrong.
Well.. i think i already know the answer to my own question.

I was dissapointed in one thing, ABC gave in and made some edits.

If you have the beans to create the film in the first place, follow through and put the product out there for the public to view. Did it point fingers at Clinton? Certainly. Did it show how much he was to blame? Not really.

The Lewinksy scandal was a problem for him at the time, human nature tells you it would be a tough call for him to make at the time. Sure almost a decade later we can point fingers and say, "Look! We could of had him!" but thats almost childish.

How many warnings were given to prevent 9/11? What of this man who was working with Donnie Whalberg's charachter and gave plenty of warning of an aviation strike on US soil in September. The administration turned a blind eye to these warnings.

At the same time though, it has to be said to Clinton and Democrats who are up in arms over this. Deal With It! I am not a Bush supporter, and to feel he is partly to blame for 9/11. He has taken his share of heat for it, and will continue for generations to come. Bush and the Republican party have been the brunt of alot of scrutiny for years, now the finger is pointed in the other direction for once and they have the gall to lose their mind over it?

I thought the film was well done, showed from a perspective we had not seen yet. I enjoyed all the Post '93 WTC attack scenes, and following the tracks of Ramzi Youssef.

All in all I liked it. Controversial, Biased, whatever. It did not change my beliefs on anything but it was entertaining to say the least. Still should not of edited a scene though.

clinton DIDNT destroy that factory to take pressure off the lewinski issue
come on people, is this the last brain cell left or something?

Do you think bush bombed weddings, Aljazeerah, Palestine hotel to take heat of him being blamed for a lack of WMD?

There were COLLOSAL mistakes through all departments.
Im certain if clinton knew of the direct threat of sept11 he would of authorised no matter what needed to be done.

People tried to push clinton as much as possible to directly intervening in the middleast.
He didnt, good for him.
Look where that stupid choice has gotten us now.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
clinton DIDNT destroy that factory to take pressure off the lewinski issue
come on people, is this the last brain cell left or something?


[edit on 17-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]

Clinton can do no wrong ... awwwww... lets all cry for him .... LOL .. yeah the factory was just a "convinient" escape goat..." oppss.. i got caught with my pants down, let me blow up something.. to distract the audiences"

Well baastetnoir... when bush has finished his term.. and you and your country are in a dying state.. with no hope what so ever for your future or your childerens future.. im sure you'll be beggingt o have a man of clintons stature to try and bring some stability to the country.

Look at the two different paths, both presidents took. And tell me, who had the best intentions of there country at heart?

Clintons ADVISORS wouldnt of allowed him to strike the factory for no reason.
They all believed it was what they thought it was, in the critical moment before the strike.

I find your post immature, your comments lacking, your ability dwindling and your reasoning mute.
So try posting something CONSTRUCTIVE to the thread.