Liberals defend fictionalized news but attack fictionalized dramas. What up wit dat?
Unsatisfied with pressuring ABC into altering its upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, Democrats now want ABC to cancel it. "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest," a press release from five U.S. Senators ominously tells ABC.
And if ABC doesn't cave, the Democrats can always call in Sandy Berger to stuff the network's copy of the movie in his pants, or jam their signal, or edit the movie to depict a caped Clinton saving the day at the end (with a captured bin Laden growling to Sheriff Janet Reno and Super Clinton, "I'd have suceeded in my evil plan if it wasn't for your meddling, Clinton!").
Not having seen The Path to 9/11, I can't comment on its accuracy. Having read the 9/11 Report, I can comment on the accuracy, or lack thereof, of one of the criticisms that The Path to 9/11 is receiving. The 9/11 Report contains numerous examples of squandered opportunities, and bureaucratic obstacles, to kill Osama bin Laden during Bill Clinton's watch. "I'm sure we’ll regret not acting last night," the report quotes a frustrated CIA operative named "Mike," who blasts the Clinton administration for calling off strikes for fear "that some stray shrapnel might hit the Habash mosque and 'offend' Muslims."
That's one example of a derailed operation. There are others. If you want the truth, the raw information in the report certainly will provide that far better than any made-for-TV movie. And the actual report may be more unflattering to Clinton than the drama that is partly based on it. While President Clinton can bank on Americans not reading the report, he has no such peace of mind with regard to a dumbed-down miniseries. Thus, the controversy, the press releases, the demands, etc.
No word yet if liberals want ABC to change the 9/11 villains into Nazis out of concerns over racial and religious sensitivity.
And any guns in the movie should be replaced with walkie-talkies.
Now we know who the true manipulators of the media
are;The Clintonistas! George Bush could never get away with this.
Dan I have a lot of respect for your ability to think for yourself on foreign policy, terrorism and (to your great credit) Iraq.
But for some reason you always follow the party line on these little issues of MSM bias.
I really don't get why conservatives aren't upset over this either. Its a fakumentary about the greatest tradgedy to befall our nation. It makes up events and rewrites history.
The ONLY reason why a Rep would support his documentary is because it might help candidates in the upcoming elections. And rewriting the history of how more than 2,000 Americans died in the deadlist attack on our nation is a LOW, unAmerican way to win elections.
Hehe, what don't you people get? It's a DOCU-DRAMA!
It's in like kind to 13 Days.
Obi, that's the PROBLEM!
Docudramas should be relegated to E true hollywood stories, not the biggest tradegey in our nations' history.
And its more than a docudrama. Its a hit piece for the midterm elections.
Clinton screwed up in a royal way on 9/11, the most important issue of our times, but we're not ever supposed to point it out because 2,000 people died?
Okay, so in essence what you're saying is that mistakes should be exempt from criticism is they result in massive civilian deaths?
Question: has anything anybody has done to NOT offend Muslims made any difference at all? They always seem pretty pizzed off and offended about something no matter what.
Extre, Extre, read all about it....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49863
It is not a hit piece for the midterms. By all accounts the Bush administration does not make it through the docu-drama smelling like roses. The timing obviously syncs with the 5th anniversary of 911.
As for your opinion that no docu-dramas should ever be made about 911, maybe you should just change the channel on this one.
Didn't A&E just recently produce one? As did some other channel? And Oliver Stone just had a movie in the theaters. I didn't hear liberals squawking about those.
I suspect ABC will fold.
With the Reagan docudrama, the scenes people complained about did not resemble actual occurances (I recall one of Reagan breaking down and wondering privately to his wife if he's bringing about the apocalypse ... is that right?), whereas it seems what the Clintons are complaining about is all, at least loosely, based on stuff that did happen and is part of the public record.
MSM bias, hehe? Of course! Why do you follow your party's ABSURD line on this one. It is as plain as day. What would you say to someone who claimed Fox News wasn't biased?
Bet T, no.
I'm saying that because people died you need to get the story right.
Beacause people died you can't just make sBS up.
Do a documentary, not a docudrama.
The point in question, did Clinton fail to act against terror, is accurate.
Bet-T, I agree.
Clinton failed on terror.
But Everyone failed on terror. Clinton. Gingrich. Lott. CIA. FBI. EVERYONE!
The blame shouldn't go to one party, and indeed in the 911 report, it didn't.
Yes, but the docu-drama in question hardly makes the GOP look like the heroes of the hour.
It purposely does more damage to Democrats then to Republicans in an effort to harm their chances in the midterms.
The screenplay was written by a conservative activist. It politizes the deaths of over 2000 American heros, it deserves to be pullled.
Because you've seen the miniseries and carefully reviewed it, I'm sure.
No I haven't.
But I've read reviews and seen some scenes. That's enough.
(sigh)
No one's going to watch it anyway. Who gives a crap?
The Clintonista's are up to their old tricks,sending the attack dogs out (i.e. Carville,Podesta,Blumenthal,etc) to attack political enemies and rewrite history and the truth. Dick Morris,who spent as much time as anyone inside the Clinton innercircle,has stated on numerous occasions that neither Clinton nor Berger had the stomach to take tough action against terrorists. They thought the terrorist war could be won by sending out the attack dogs on the Sunday morning talk shows and win the war with spin and political attacks.
The bottom line is, Clinton's draft dodge made him sqeamish about risking military causalties. Morris has stated that Clinton was afraid, if causualties occured on his watch,the issue of his dodging the draft would be resurface. He chose to ignore state sponsorship of terrorism and treat all terror as law enforcement,doing this, made it appear that he was engaged without taking the political risks that come with military action.
To believe that Clinton,Berger,Lake,Albright,Clarke,etc. had the stomach to take the risks necessary to kill (not indictments and/or arrests) terrorists, is completely laughable. These people never understood that only ACTION, not spin and taking polls, is the most effective way to deal with terrorists.
Until Democrats stop placing their poll numbers and world opinion (i.e. European socialists) ahead of US interest, they don't deserve to be trusted with national security matters.
I don't really get the point of that post, but if Clinton was a draft dodge, Bush was a deserter.
Todd, where were you and your speeched during the 1990's?
I never heard a single Republican sound the alarm over terrorism back then, to critize Clinton now is severely hypocrytical.
Everyone failed to stop 9/11.
BTW Bill Bennett has just come out against the documentary.
This really isn't a partisan battle, its a struggle between the truth and lies.
The victims of 911 deserve the truth.
A good book to read is Dereliction of Duty by: LTC Robert "Buzz" Patterson. It talks about the incompetant handling of Bin Laden by the Clinton Administration. LTC Patterson was the Air Force officer in charge of handling the Nuclear Football during the latter half of the Clinton Admin. He tells of how Clinton had 2 opportunities to take out Bin Laden in the mid to late 90's but was too bussy playing golf with Hollywood celebrities....go figure.
That was a good book and showed how back then (as now) Clinton was more concerned, obsessed almost, with the Lewinsky cover-up than the security of the nation.
Clinton and Dems are still demonstrating the same kind of behavior showed by how they tried to censor "Path to 911".
OMG!! Are you serious??
Was Clinton obsessed with the "cover-up"?
Or were Republicans obsessed with impeaching him. They turned a comission designed to investigate a land deal into a sexual witch hunt!
