Not Saussure

September 8, 2006

Jon Swift: Conservatives Should Hate Disney’s Path to 911, Too

Filed under: 9/11, Blogroll, Politics, usa, Wingnuts — notsaussure @ 6:04 pm

The reasonable American conservative has not actually seen The Path to 9/11, of course, but he finds it most disturbing, despite being

relieved to find out that instead of making an animated version of the events of September 11, Disney was actually making a live-action film in the tradition of such live-action Disney classics as Son of Flubber and The Shaggy Dog.

For example,

Apparently the director didn’t bother filming the scene where President Bush learns of the attacks while reading My Pet Goat to schoolchildren. How could they leave out one of the Bush’s greatest moments as President, the seven minutes when he sat there motionless and plotted out his entire strategy for the War on Terror in his head? Perhaps it wouldn’t have been very dramatic to film the President just sitting there for seven minutes but the filmmakers could have telescoped time a bit, as they claim to do in other scenes, and showed him sitting there for, say, four minutes. And I have not heard any mention of a scene showing Saddam Hussein planning the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Leaving out an important scene like that seems to me to be a big dramatic oversight, basically confusing the viewer by making the invasion of Iraq appear to be completely pointless.



  1. I think you should look at real life. If you recall, they didn’t show clinton either. Neither Bush or the Republicans ever said that Saddam planned the 911 attacks. They simply said it was different after 911. No longer could we wait for our enemies to reach our shores. Saddam had something like 12 years to comply. How many times would you let your kid flip you off before you smacked him.

    Comment by Open Mind — September 13, 2006 @ 3:45 am

  2. You must take it up with Mr Swift, but I think he’s going in for a bit of comic exaggeration there. Certainly, though, at the time the invasion was very much sold, as I recall, on the premise that Saddam had links with al-Qaida (he didn’t) and that this and his weapons of mass destruction (which he turned out not to have) constituted a real and immediate threat to the USA.

    Take a look, for example, at President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati in October 2002

    Certainly, most people here in the UK — of all shades of political opinion — think that we were taken into the war by our Prime Minister on a false prospectus, and that it was a false prospectus he was repeating on behalf of your President.

    You may be relieved to know that we blame Tony Blair for this more than we blame George Bush, but certainly this has done great harm to your country’s reputation here — a fact in which I take no pleasure whatsoever, by the way.

    Your analogy about ‘how many times would you let your kid flip you off …’ isn’t, I fear, a particularly useful one. For one thing, family relationships aren’t necessarily a model for international relationships, and, second, I don’t think Iraq was America’s kid; at one stage an American President could certainly have described Saddam as ‘A bastard, but at least he’s one of our bastards’ (can’t remember who first said that of whom), but that’s not quite the same thing!

    Comment by notsaussure — September 13, 2006 @ 8:29 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: