Finally, some of the truth: "The Path to 9/11" ABC Sun.-Mon.

[ASUADPi]

Am I the only one who finds it kind of tacky that they are starting the mini-series on 9/10 and concluding on 9/11, which just happens to be the five year anniversery.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

Am I the only one who finds it kind of tacky that they are starting the mini-series on 9/10 and concluding on 9/11, which just happens to be the five year anniversery.

It's a brilliant marketing strategy.

[PiKA2001]

Sometimes I think if the people in D.C. weren't so hell-bent on trying to impeach Clinton for the blow-job, maybe he would have been able to get Bin Laden, but who can say for sure. I heard the the mini-series was largely based on fact, meaning some of the stuff was fictionalized.

[shinerbock]

I just think it is pathetic than a former President is attempting to censor a mini drama on ABC. No surprise Sandy Berger is all upset, he's the biggest crook of them all.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I just think it is pathetic than a former President is attempting to censor a mini drama on ABC. No surprise Sandy Berger is all upset, he's the biggest crook of them all.

Well, given Disney's statement that this isn't a documentary, it's a drama -- meaning some parts may be fictionalized to some extent -- you can't exactly be surprised if the "characters" in your "drama" take issue with your "facts."

It's one thing when it's "Braveheart" -- Robert the Bruce, Longshanks, Edward II and Isabella aren't around to complain of how they were portrayed inaccurately. It's a little different when the main players are still alive.

And I'd still rather have the Clinton gang in the White House than the current occupants.

[shinerbock]

Listen, I like Clinton, but this situation is just shameful. When an entire party in this country goes "no you can't do that, you have to blame Bush more than Clinton!" things are getting a little pathetic. There is absolutely no doubt that Clinton dropped the ball on Osama. Somebody called off the order, and most intelligent people in this world know it was Berger. Hell, read the 9/11 report. I'm not saying Bush didn't make mistakes as well, but Clinton was in office for 8 of the 9 years prior to the attacks. I'm simply dumbfounded at the reaction of the democratic party, who doesnt mind at all when Bush is blamed for absolutely everything wrong with the country, yet is trying to censor the media's portrayal of something everyone knows happened in some form or another.

[MysticCat]

^^^^ I can agree that the reaction is, shall we say, way over the top, and it's interesting to see the reaction when the shoe is on the left rather than the right foot, as it were. (Though I have no doubt that if the feet were reversed, Republicans would be screaming just as loudly.) There's no censorship or attempted censorship involved, though. The government has to be doing it for it to be censorship. Political pressure, perhaps, but not censorship.

I can also agree that there is plenty of blame to go around, regardless of whether those in a position to know agree that Berger was at fault or are pretty unanimous in agreeing that Albright did not actually say the things she is credited with saying in the miniseries.

I would prefer that ABC not air "The Path to 9/11" at all, not because of anyone's political feelings being hurt, but because only 5 years from the event, a made-for-TV miniseries will add little of value to the public discourse, I think.