Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11 began airing on ABC on Sunday, September 10 @ 8/7c. The story is continued on Monday, September 11 @ 8/7c. There has been some controversy about the portrayal of fictional events.
Why is this an issue?

On September 7th, ABC issued a statement that the attacks against their film were premature, that no one has seen the final cut and changes were still being made. Yet, it seems to me that the scenes that were being attacked as misrepresenting the actions of real people were still a part of the film. ABC did not seem to change the film to make it more honest, but instead may have just added more reminders to be sure we knew that it was a docuDRAMA and not a documentary. I am very concerned that the purpose of this film is to convince American's that we need to suspend some of the chain of command and privacy issues that are inplace to maintain good relations between nations as well as protect our personal freedoms.

Knowing that some of the story is false is important. A message flashed on the screen during the middle and at the end of Sunday nights' airing that reminded the audience that the film was based on the 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other sources. The message reminded us that what we were watching was not a documentary and some characters were composites, some events were fictional, and in some instances time was compressed.
I wonder if the message was added in because of the controversy.

If The Path is a docu-drama, what are the fictional events?

So far, these are all the instanes that I know to be either "composites" or not at all true:
1) There was no moment when CIA agents teamed up with the North Alliance in Afghanistan to capture and possible kill bin Laden.
2) Madeline Albright did not warn Pakistan that tomahawk missiles would be flying through Pakistani airspace on the way to destroy bin Laden.

After the movie, ABC Nightline came on and let us know that there is more information being uncovered that indicate that there were attempts to take down bin Laden that fell through.

Even with the parts that were not contested for being fictionalized, there was an overwhelming theme: bureaucracy, the red tape, makes it difficult for the FBI and CIA to fight terrorists.

John O'Neil, the character played by Harvey Keitel, has many great lines that help build the main message: how can we fight a war with terrorists through the channels of law and order!
It seems to me, thus far, that the purpose of the fictionalized scenes is to emphasize the main point. It is possible that liberals and conservatives alike are both at odds with the film because it means that politics are the main problem in the war on terror.....tonight, everything happened on Clinton's watch, tomorrow it will be the G.W. Bush's administration who may be cast as the enforcers of red tape....

I am looking forward to finding out how the Bush administration is portrayed.

The issue of some scenes is that they are fictional and these are an important historic events. The issue with some of the scenes being fictional is that they may be misrepresentations of the acts of real people, like Madeline Albright.

Composite scenes, like those where CIA agents are working to locate and plan are one thing...maybe it happened that way and maybe it did not...there are few references to public figures (other than Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance). If this film were to be viewed by kids at school that would be the kind of scene that could be discussed in terms of the various reports about its accuracies...however the depiction of Madeline Albright doing something she claims she did not do seems to be more of an issue for the courts.

The film is a docudrama, which is why it is important to seek out multiple sources if a person is interested in knowing what really happened on the Path to 9/11.....this is also why it is important that people come out and discuss what really happened.

If some of the scenes are FALSE, I really hope the issue continued to be argued and that the truth is known.

We need to know if the actions of politicians held up law enforcement. We need to know how we can make protocol more fluid so that justice can be served and loss of life prevented. BUT we can not be convinced to forgo our civil rights in the name of national security!