The Path to 9/11
posted by CS | 2:19 PM 
ABC is airing a docudrama based on the 9/11 Commission Report, The Path to 9/11 - this Sunday and Monday. Most unpredictably, it seems to have a reasonable basis in reality - that is, it's not a slanted puff piece.
A little inspection proves this out, possibly. I learned some time ago that if you want to know how to interpret a work - be it a book, film, painting, music, college class, whatever - it behooves you to look at who is involved with it, who has given birth to it. The Path to 9/11 is directed by David L. Cunningham, whose previous work includes the most excellent To End All Wars, certainly not typical Hollywood fare, what with its overt Christian themes of redemption and reconciliation. Additionally, The Path... stars Patricia Heaton, infamous for her conservative Christian views and association with projects which could be said to be family-focused.
So I encourage you to watch with me The Path to 9/11 on 9/10 and 9/11/2006.
A little inspection proves this out, possibly. I learned some time ago that if you want to know how to interpret a work - be it a book, film, painting, music, college class, whatever - it behooves you to look at who is involved with it, who has given birth to it. The Path to 9/11 is directed by David L. Cunningham, whose previous work includes the most excellent To End All Wars, certainly not typical Hollywood fare, what with its overt Christian themes of redemption and reconciliation. Additionally, The Path... stars Patricia Heaton, infamous for her conservative Christian views and association with projects which could be said to be family-focused.
So I encourage you to watch with me The Path to 9/11 on 9/10 and 9/11/2006.
7 Comments:
Well, as easily predictable, the Democrats are whanny-whah crybabies over this piece and want parts "edited," which ABC is apparently going to do.
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51884
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14718803/
You never saw any "editing" from Michael Moore with his slant piece of "Fahrenheit 9/11" when there were calls of his lies and "misleadings" throughout the film...and I think they should stick to their guns if it's truthful and not kowtow to the people who don't like it--especially from the ones who were obviously involved and don't want to be shown as culpable in any way for having some responsibility in the chain reaction to 9/11. I heard the Dems might pressure ABC to cancel it, but it looks like they'll try anything if they can't get cancellation to cover up any responsibility they played in contributing to the events of 9/11. They just want the "Blame Bush" mantra to go out, but never any "Blame Clinton."
Perhaps someone such as Fox will option the rights to rebroadcast the "extended director's cut", including footage of Sandy Berger stealing documents from the Nat'l Archives (hiding them on his corpulent person, no less). What's there to hide, Sandy? Public servant? Try public disgrace.
When I think of the face-saving attempts of people such as this, I think of the words of Christ: "Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."
I hope someone will air the complete, unedited version at some point. At least ABC isn't canceling it (so far as we know). I also hope the full version will release on DVD.
Apparently, a former Clinton aide agreed that "The Path to 9/11" is "100 percent factually correct."
http://wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51898
"100 percent factually correct"
before investing too much into such a statement, recall that everything M. Moore puts in his films is "fact."
the best example is using footage of a news report projecting a Gore victory in 2000 - which certainly happened, 100 percent fact that the newcast went out to the nation. Left unsaid was that the projection was wrong, and Bush had won the election all along.
Bok long ago defined several levels of lying - and deception by using 100 percent facts is the most powerful kind of deception.
Is someone to blame for 911? Of course: those sociopaths who recruited, financed and brainwashed a couple of dozen weak-willed losers to throw their lives away in pursuit of non-existant glory and reward.
Last I checked, none of those sociopaths ever sat in the oval office in the 80s, 90s or 21st c.
Could the attack have been prevented? We seem to forget that the method of destruction was way beyond our ken, making it impossible to anticipate...
but once their hand was shown: look to a field in PA at how Americans responded and defended.
There's a film, "9/11," by the French documentarians the Naudet brothers. I compel myself to watch it once every year or two. It remains, for me, the best record of the events in New York, as it was accidentally caught by a couple of pretty good filmmakers.
http://www.amazon.com/
11-Filmmakers-Commemorative-James-Hanlon/dp/B00006B1HI
Three times during Sunday's episode, ABC Entertainment ran disclaimers that it contained "fictionalized scenes" for "dramatic and narrative purposes."
That means that by their own admission, parts of it were not true.
Moore, as slanted as he is, never made composite characters or had actors dramatize things that didn't happen, and call that the truth.
hahaha...i think you guys actually need to read the 9/11 commissions report before claiming the movie is fact. and might help you to have a better rationality than saying its true b/c it was made by christians. that's like saying "the kettle is black, therefore the earth is round"
Post a Comment
<< Home