Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
The ABC mini-series was basically the truth. Any time you have a movie that is based on a true story, you will have scenes that may be slightly different from what happened in real life. It's not as if they get the exact script from real life. Sometimes you will even have a character who did not exists but who represented a few different people. Take a movie like "All the Presiden't Men". Were you complaining that they had a few things wrong in the movie and that it was not an exact replica of real life? Of course you weren't. Everyone recognizes that when you do a movie, it's not going a 100% perfect replication of real life. The ABC mini-series was more accurate than 99% of movies based on true stories. They got most of the information from the 9/11 commision and from the real players involved.
You probably didn't even watch the mini-series because you probably fell for all the left-wing propagnda about the movie not being 100% accurate. Do you think they were crying because the movie wasn't a perfect re-enactment of real life or because the movie made them look bad? The answer to that is obvious. They wouldn't have complained about the movie at all if it didn't make them look bad. They wouldn't have been crying that a scene was slightly off if it didn't make them look bad. Clinton and his team actually did a great job of fooling people into thinking the movie wasn't accurate when in reality it was very accurate.
|
Except that things presented in the movie as fact are CONTRADICTED by the 9/11 report. You know what I call that? Lying. More accurate than "99 %" of movies based on true stories? Oh dear. Rupert, I worry for you-- for all your insistence you aren't a typical right-winger, you do seem to have the obsessive hatred for the Clintons that has marked most of them the past six years. It sounds to me like you want to believe the right-wing media that rushed to reassure you that really, this silly "docudrama" wasn't all THAT inaccurate.
If falling for "left-wing propaganda" means demanding the truth, then stick me in with the left-wing loonies, please.
Here's one specific for you from the movie:
<<Nowrasteh's most egregious fictionalizing occurs in Act 4, which depicts a supposed strike on bin Laden's Afghan redoubt that is called off at the last second by Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, who says, "I don't have that authority." Under cover of night, a CIA agent known only as "Kirk" leads a Special Forces team into the remote mountain compound where the al-Qaida chief is hiding. "The package is ready!" cries Kirk over the satellite phone, but Berger aborts the operation because he doesn't want to take responsibility.
That incident simply never occurred. As Clarke himself would have told Nowrasteh, no CIA officer ever tracked bin Laden to his hideout. Neither did Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who is shown guiding the aborted operation. The handsome, charismatic Massoud, later assassinated by al-Qaida agents, asks Kirk angrily, "Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?" That sort of rhetoric is frequently uttered by actors portraying characters such as Massoud and O'Neill, who are no longer around to dispute the script.
Had Nowrasteh consulted the 9/11 Commission report, not only would he have found no evidence to support his exciting imaginary assault on the bin Laden compound, but he would also have learned that the underlying assumptions were completely wrong. The report states explicitly, as Clarke and other senior officials have affirmed, that Clinton and Berger ordered the CIA and the military to use any force necessary to get bin Laden>>