First, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a confirmed Bush-basher who is ashamed that this war criminal was re-elected, etc etc. Second, I have long been fascinated by the whole issue, long before 9/11, so I am (if I can boast), quite well informed.
So in sum, I agree that this movie went well past dramatic license into some historical revisionism. The serious ones to me are NOT the ones everyone is complaining about.
The most serious one is that there was no mention at all of the "Wag the Dog" context of the debate. When Clinton hit the drug factory in Sudan, he was excoriated by the rabid Right for pulling a "Wag the Dog" stunt. When any of the Clinton people objected to an action, there were very good strategic reasons for it, and those reasons were highlighted or exaggerated by the "Wag the Dog" issue.
Second is that Richard Clarke was one of the people voting with the Clinton team on some of those "stand down" orders. It was Michael Scheuer (who is not in this movie at all, is he?) who had the reputation of pushing the "get Bin Laden at any cost" line, not Clarke.
Third, Bin Laden's fatwa is only mentioned as existing. His six points of accusation are never mentioned. Why would America become such an enemy? By not articulating the Al-Qaeda side, we demonize our enemy, to our detriment.
Dramatic license abounds, but I was not bothered by two key ones: a. It is widely known that no CIA agents OR assets ever saw Bin Laden from a hillside, as was OFTEN depicted. The best shot we had (the falcon hunt) isn't here, and he wasn't seen in the Predator for our best shot! b. Ahmed Shah Massoud was made into a noble hero. While I sympathize with him, it should be pointed out that he also brutalized his rivals in the Northern Alliance. We also never learn why he was held in such high regard, namely, that he innovated guerrilla warfare dramatically during the anti-Soviet war and succeeded where few others were able.
So in sum, I agree that this movie went well past dramatic license into some historical revisionism. The serious ones to me are NOT the ones everyone is complaining about.
The most serious one is that there was no mention at all of the "Wag the Dog" context of the debate. When Clinton hit the drug factory in Sudan, he was excoriated by the rabid Right for pulling a "Wag the Dog" stunt. When any of the Clinton people objected to an action, there were very good strategic reasons for it, and those reasons were highlighted or exaggerated by the "Wag the Dog" issue.
Second is that Richard Clarke was one of the people voting with the Clinton team on some of those "stand down" orders. It was Michael Scheuer (who is not in this movie at all, is he?) who had the reputation of pushing the "get Bin Laden at any cost" line, not Clarke.
Third, Bin Laden's fatwa is only mentioned as existing. His six points of accusation are never mentioned. Why would America become such an enemy? By not articulating the Al-Qaeda side, we demonize our enemy, to our detriment.
Dramatic license abounds, but I was not bothered by two key ones: a. It is widely known that no CIA agents OR assets ever saw Bin Laden from a hillside, as was OFTEN depicted. The best shot we had (the falcon hunt) isn't here, and he wasn't seen in the Predator for our best shot! b. Ahmed Shah Massoud was made into a noble hero. While I sympathize with him, it should be pointed out that he also brutalized his rivals in the Northern Alliance. We also never learn why he was held in such high regard, namely, that he innovated guerrilla warfare dramatically during the anti-Soviet war and succeeded where few others were able.