The Legacy Game

Do the Dems believe in free speech and artistic expression?

I thought they care about civil liberties and the Constitution, so much so that they "killed" the Patriot Act (temporarily).

Now, they are bringing out the big guns to "kill" a TV movie because they don't like it.

Apparently, the Dems are truly frightened, so frightened that they are abusing their power and threatening ABC over its upcoming mini-series.

They obviously believe that it could do tremendous harm to their party or they wouldn't be trying to alter it or prevent it from being seen at all.

Boo Hoo.

Senate Democrats even sent a letter to Disney's Robert Iger demanding that the September 10 and 11 airing of The Path to 9/11 mini-series be cancelled.

The letter was signed by Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Chuck Schumer, and Byron Dorgan.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Howard Kurtz reports that the Dems have been successful.

ABC plans to make minor changes to its docudrama on the run-up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in response to heated complaints from former Clinton administration officials that a number of scenes are fabricated, a network executive said yesterday.

...The ABC executive said the "adjustments and refinements" are "intended to make clearer that it was general indecisiveness" by federal officials that left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks, "not any one individual." The executive, who requested anonymity because the network is making only written comments, said small revisions have been underway for weeks.

Suddenly, the Dems care about the truth. That's odd, given that they thrive on selling lies and distortions to the American people.

Their "take no prisoners" approach to getting some fictionalized aspects of the docudrama altered is stunning.

Do you realize that they are taking a harder line on The Path to 9/11 than they take in fighting the War on Terror? The appeasers have decided that this is the battle they desperately need to win.

Do you see what's wrong with that picture?

I think the Dems need to get a grip.

It's rather amusing that Bill Clinton and his brigade have blown a gasket over this.

They need to keep it in proper perspective. It's a TV movie! It's not as if this mini-series is being chiseled in stone and declared the one and only official history of the pre-9/11 era.

Furthermore, Clinton hasn't been president for five and a half years. Getting bent out of shape over his portrayal is unnecessary.

It's not as if Americans are being put at risk because Clinton is a sitting president, and he's being relentlessly bashed as incompetent.

The Dems view a mini-series that may possibly do damage to the Clinton administration's legacy as irresponsible and an unconscionable act of misrepresentation; but when they actively seek to destroy President Bush and members of his administration with outright lies, it's business as usual for the Dems. That's their mission, their ultimate goal.

Madeleine Albright has been running around hawking her book about the incompetence of President Bush and the dangers of the Bush presidency. Has the administration demanded that her inaccurate creation be banned in the name of presenting factual content?

Is Jimmy Carter censored when he lies about the President and actively undermines him and the country every chance he gets?

Is Russ Feingold prevented from spewing his inaccuracies about the INTERNATIONAL terrorist surveillance program?

What about the secret counterterrorism programs that The New York Times likes to splash? Has The Times been shut down due to the recklessness and subversiveness of its staff?

Think of Fahrenheit 9/11 and the abuse President Bush took from Michael Moore, in the middle of a presidential campaign. Moore's film was packed with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, yet it was shown in theaters all over the country and the world.

During wartime, with American troops in harm's way, Dems had no problem with Moore's hit piece on the Commander in Chief, nor do they have a problem with all the other inaccuracies (lies) that are told about the current administration (Joe Wilson, Richard Armitage).

I suppose the Dems are just mad that Sandy Berger's National Archives heist wasn't enough to save Clinton and his administration from scrutiny when it comes to their responsibility in regard to the 9/11 attacks.

The Dems should quit worrying about how their party appears in the mini-series. They should worry about the reality of their party today and what they stand for (appeasement).

As for Clinton's legacy, we know that it is permanently stained. We know of his administration's many, many failures, the consequences of which we struggle with today (North Korea).

And the Dems in office now are doing nothing to rectify the miscalculations of the Clinton administration. To the contrary, they, too, are promoting policies and behave in ways that weaken our national security and are detrimental to our country.

Do Clinton and the Dems really think that The Path to 9/11 is going to harm them more than they've already harmed themselves?

The real story here is not how Dems are forcing edits on a mini-series. It's how Dems have hurt America. That's a legacy that they cannot edit.
________________________________


Read this review of the mini-series from The Detroit Free Press:

There have already been rumblings of controversy and criticism for "The Path to 9/11." The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group, has slammed the docudrama, alleging factual inaccuracies. The group said Tuesday in a news release that "the miniseries largely casts blame for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks on the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration."

"The Path to 9/11" does use the standard historical docudrama disclaimer in regard to telescoping events with "time compression" and using "composite and representative characters."

And in one cheesy note of semi-exploitation, the film relies rely rather heavily on news images of former President Bill Clinton embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, leading to congressional impeachment hearings. The implication? The president might have missed a chance to nab Osama bin Laden in the late 1990s because of the distracting pressures of the impeachment imbroglio.

"This president is not going to take chances," Richard Clarke is quoted as saying.

But on balance, over five often compelling hours, "The Path to 9/11" seems extremely scrupulous in trying not to assign blame for the events of 9/11 to the administrations of either Clinton or President George W. Bush.

It sounds like the Dems' have blown the significance of this mini-series out of proportion.

And as far as the accuracy of its content goes...

The Dems doth protest too much, methinks.