| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Path to Hysteria |
| 2006-09-18 |
| My sin was to write a screenplay accurately depicting Bill Clinton's record on terrorism by Cyrus Nowrasteh, Wall Street Journal I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for "The Path to 9/11." I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal--to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing. My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report. It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my "friendship" with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. . . . In July a reporter asked if I had ever been ethnically profiled. I happily replied, "No." I can no longer say that. The L.A. Times, for one, characterized me by race, religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin and political leanings--wrongly on four of five counts. To them I was an Iranian-American politically conservative Muslim. It is perhaps irrelevant in our brave new world of journalism that I was born in Boulder, Colo. I am not a Muslim or practitioner of any religion, nor am I a political conservative. What am I? I am, most devoutly, an American. I asked the reporter if this kind of labeling was a new policy for the paper. He had no response. The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham's possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father's outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission. . . . Mr. Nowrasteh wrote the screenplay for "The Path to 9/11." |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 I've been thinking about the 15,000 Saudi Students the Universities want out of state tuition from. I realized what is missing from the whole deal: INSURANCE! After all, everything else in life with major risk has insurance. This should too! 911 cost the US over 1 trillion dollars and counting. The Saudis are not paying proper tuition to send these kids to the USA! They need to indemnify the people of the USA and the economy! The policy needs to be for at least 1 trillion dollars or no chance of a deal as that is likely less than break even. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-09-18 15:45 |
| #14 He has effectively killed Hillary's chances for the presidency. Although I wish we could have done that for the sport of it. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-18 13:31 |
| #13 Yeah, bigjim, that crossed my mind when the howling started. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-18 13:26 |
| #12 You know what the great part is? The general public are such sheep that one "made for TV" movie could swing the elections in Nov. Why do you think the Donks are howling for this guys blood? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-09-18 11:15 |
| #11 Mr. Nowrasteh can write. I disagree. His script was ham-handed and simplistic. That's regardless of the truth of the events depicted. If Clinton is portrayed as more culpable than Bush, it's only because he was in office for the previous eight years (rather than eight months), and because the filmmakers chose to begin their story with the 1993 bombing of the WTC. They could have started with Gulf War I, and bashed George H.W. Bush. It is funny that the movie portrayed the Clinton administration as being more concerned with passing the buck and covering their asses than with fighting the terrorists. And how did they respond to that charge? By passing the buck and covering their asses. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2006-09-18 11:00 |
| #10 I'm know psychoanalyst, but when people like Billary, Halfbright, and Sandy Burglar jump guilty, that tells me there is reason for their guilt. When the donks jump guilty on national security issues, even when they are not being explicitly cited, then there is reason for their being defensive. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-18 10:38 |
| #9 The 9/11 ommission is well named. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-18 10:22 |
| #8 I never blamed 9/11 on Clinton or Bush. But like Cyber Sarge says "bureaucratic cluster f***." But I can blame Clinton, Albright, and Berger, for worrying more about thier image, than helping understand how we allowed 9/11 to happen, and give us a chance to learn how to stop the next one. that can't be done without knowing the truth. Thank you for the letter Nowrasteh. It takes guts in your position in the industrry you are in to just tell the truth as you see it. Which is all the rest of us want. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2006-09-18 10:19 |
| #7 As I said before neither Bush nor Clinton were portrayed in any good light. The reason behind that is because they were both part (if not opposing sides) of one great big bureaucratic cluster f***. Richard Clark was painted as a leader of terrorism MEETINGS (not action), and the CIA guys in the field were seen as hamstrung by the CYA crowd in Washington (including Clark). When it came time to make a critical decision they ALL acquiesced to the status quo of not attacking them directly. I found it a very good portrayal of how things actually work in the high-level bureaucracy that is still the foundation of our government. I would add that the adoption of the short-sided and downright DUMB 9/11 commission suggestions hasnÂ’t made us any safer. It just added another layer of political hacks that will filter every decision (yay). |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-09-18 10:09 |
| #6 And you notice the same number of national liberals of standing who denouce such behaviors matches the number of senior Imans who denouce the behavior of their thugs. Ref. #5 I also note that the said liberals do not represent the entire population, even when the non-liberals are not out in the street seething, protesting and breaking things. By the same token, I presume a number of senior imams do not represent what I presume is the 'silent majority' of (mythical) moderate muslims. Our enemy is the Islamofascist, or Islamic Crusader, if you will, not Cyrus Nowrasteh because he looks Iranian. When you say you want to "kill all muslims", you're in the same boat with the 'kill all the jews' or 'kill all the infidels' crowd(s). Try to stay out of that particular boat. Not all Californians are Dianne Feinstein. /sermon |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-18 10:07 |
| #5 In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger Isn't the left just soooo nice, warm, and friendly? And you notice the same number of national liberals of standing who denouce such behaviors matches the number of senior Imans who denouce the behavior of their thugs. Power is self-justifying. |
| Posted by: Chang Cholunter4501 2006-09-18 09:17 |
| #4 Mr. Nowrasteh can write. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-09-18 09:06 |
| #3 Nah. Lower than white-whale poo-poo, and that's at the bottom of the ocean. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-09-18 08:57 |
| #2 Compared to you, Bill Clinton is pond scum. Compared to pond scum, he's pond scum too. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-09-18 08:55 |
| #1 Great work, many thanks to you, Cyrus Nowrasteh. Compared to you, Bill Clinton is pond scum. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-18 08:53 |