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

[ann.coulter2]

With the Clinton legacy-building team (most of whom assert that Monica was just a troubled girl receiving counseling from Bill) protesting so strongly, there must be a lot of truth in ABC's mini-series "The Path to 9/11" on the boob toob Sun. and Mon. nights.

"Rarely does television reach this level of drama, and director David Cunningham and writer Cyrus Nowrasteh deserve great praise from left, right and center for a masterful retelling of the crucial events leading up to the devastation of five years ago," writes my buddy Hugh Hewitt.

Clinton's air-brush team is pressuring ABC to "correct" anything in the drama which might mar the legacy.

Clinton is now demanding that the whole show be cancelled. Clinton says, in a letter to ABC, that he was not distracted by the Monica affair, allowing bin Laden to get away.

Was he, or was he not, blown away?

[MysticCat]

Interesting that this was posted in the "Entertainment" forum rather than the "News and Politics" forum.

But then, of course, I'm sure "Ann Coulter" isn't suggesting that we put too much credence into what a liberal network like Disney's ABC tells us. It's just entertainment, folks.

[shinerbock]

Yeah, the democrats are so outraged they're collecting signatures, and now weak-ass ABC has decided to "tone it down." Too bad they didn't do the same thing when the network news basically decided that W had caused Katrina, 9/11 and basically tried to have Valerie Plame killed.

[RACooper]

Saying that the path to 9/11 started during the Clinton years is woefully short-sighted... the ideology of the terrorists was born during the first decades of the twentieth century, was nurtured in the post-colonial days following WWII, and matured during the later stages of the Cold War (particluarly in Afghanistan).

So if the mini-series was to be truthful, they should start from the day itself (9/11) and start going back with each episode - so covering what effects the each US administration had; as well as the policies of the French, German, and British colonial governments and Imperial practices had in birthing the ideology.


But then again... this is in the Entertainment section - so I guess a program that reduces the complicated ideology and path to 9/11 to political sniping and a partisan blame game does make sense.

[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.

[BigRedBeta]

You know I have to think that if the Republicans hadn't gotten in hysterics over a little bj, he might not have been distracted...

[shinerbock]

Or maybe he was a little distracted because he was in the Oval gettin oral.

[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.

[shinerbock]

I personally think it is a great idea. I think ABC should do a true investigative documentary about the lead up to 9/11. I'm not sure whether thats what this is or not. You're somewhat right about "if the shoe was on the other foot," but lets be honest, republicans are defamed in the media and entertainment industry day in and day out, I don't think another show or book would cause much rioting in the party. I think its high time Clinton and Albright and Co. were held up to the public for their non-action in foreign policy. I just find it refreshing that a network would actually say that hey, everything wrong in the world isn't Bush's fault. Quite shocking, really.

To the people still upset about the investigation of the Clinton BJ...I think we should make a deal. We'll pay back the costs of that investigation just as soon as you front the bill for the Valerie Plame witchhunt.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You're somewhat right about "if the shoe was on the other foot," but lets be honest, republicans are defamed in the media and entertainment industry day in and day out, I don't think another show or book would cause much rioting in the party.

I do seem to remember a fair amount of clamour about the Reagan miniseries and how Reagan was to be portrayed. CBS ended up pulling the miniseries because of it.

If this were a true documentary or a good piece of investigative journalism, I think I'd be more inclined to agree to "bring it on." But it's not. ABC will even run disclaimers: "The movie is not a documentary." Supposedly Thomas Kean has been acting as a consultant to the film and has pointed out inaccuracies, at least as compared to the 9/11 Commission report. But it's still a made-for-TV movie/miniseries -- a medium that I will admit I have little respect for these days.

Per ABC, it is "a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11Commission Report and other sources, in an epic miniseries event that will air with limited commercial interruption." And, "[f]or dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression."