Democrats threaten to revoke ABC's license over 9-11 miniseries; network caves
But given that this is the same network that fired Michael Graham last year, it shouldn't be too surprising. All the same, this certainly is ludicrous (H/T: Michelle Malkin), right down to the "Google bombing campaign" they were planning. See what Dan Riehl has to say at Newsbusters for more.
Hugh Hewitt (also via Michelle) reports that:
I really don't like ABC, but all the same, if anyone wants to contact them, give it a try.
See also this topic and video from Hot Air on one of Clinton's own bungles on dealing with Osama back in 2000. And, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I suggest checking out this topic I'd written on my comics blog, in which I may have found a pro-Clinton bias right within The 9/11 Comission Report: A Graphic Adaptation. But judge for yourselves, of course.
Hugh Hewitt (also via Michelle) reports that:
"The Path to 9/11" is a superb condensing of the American non-response to terrorism's growing threat beginning with the bungled surveillance of the first World Trade Center bombers right through the devastating attacks of 9/11. I spent most of yesterday's three hour program with the program's writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh, and no serious observer could listen to this interview and conclude that the movie is other than a deeply serious attempt to recount the events leading to the massacre of five years ago, primarily through the eyes of John O'Neill, the FBI agent who had taken over security at the World Trade Center just weeks prior to the attack and whose actions that day are believed to have saved thousans of lives.Perhaps, but then, since when in all due fairness did the Dems have the legal authority to revoke a network's license? Or is that a threat they're making that, if elected to office, they'll go Putin on them?
For the Clinton team to demand cancelation or edits of the movie is to once again see them elevate their own pesonal vanity above every other interest, especially over the interests of John O'Neill and th emany other public servants who saw the threat clearly and did their best to stop it. The objections of various Clinton-era figures --Berger rightly argues he didn't hang up a phone in one scene, for example-- are absurd complaints about the tiny details used to compress eight years and eight months into five hours of drama. From these complaints they have built a tissue-thin demand for an Orwellian memory-hole moment.
...There is no reasonable case to be made that the film distorts history or slanders public figures in any significant way.
("The Path to 9/11" doesn't even raise the most damning charge made against Clinton --that he fumbled an Osama hand-0ff from Sudan.)
If ABC caves to the vanity of Bill Clinton and his band of defenders, the network can give up any claim to being other than an extension of the DNC. That it would consider doing so over such a powerful film on so important a subject on such a meaningful pair of days is hard to imagine. Those who are urging the network to do so are disgracing themselves, not the picture or its makers.
I really don't like ABC, but all the same, if anyone wants to contact them, give it a try.
See also this topic and video from Hot Air on one of Clinton's own bungles on dealing with Osama back in 2000. And, for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I suggest checking out this topic I'd written on my comics blog, in which I may have found a pro-Clinton bias right within The 9/11 Comission Report: A Graphic Adaptation. But judge for yourselves, of course.
Labels: showbiz
