Democrats: Looking Out for YOU

Yes, the ever-vigilant Democrats are trying to make sure that you are not exposed to a work of fiction on TV. They are determined to have the upcoming mini-series, The Path to 9/11, pulled from the ABC schedule. How do I know it's fiction? Because the liberal New York Times says it is.

All mini-series Photoshop the facts. "“The Path to 9/11" is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers'’ imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.

If the Old, Grey, Slightly Senile, Incontinent Lady says it's fiction, then it's fiction. Who has more experience with fiction than the NYT? Clinton's lawyers wrote a letter to ABC chief Bob Iger demanding that changes be made to the drama. Iger caved. Then, Clinton's lawyers sent another letter to Iger demanding that ABC yank The Path to 9/11 altogether. Here is the text of that second letter, with my comments in blue.

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

If the show can't be labeled as "fiction," then what is it? Are you saying it contains too much truth to be labeled as fiction?

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

I think the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama (so, in the first paragraph it isn't fiction and in the second paragraph it is? Wha?) would have been better spent buying me a house. So what? Maybe you'd like to donate the millions you make to inform the public about the Commission's actual findings. Oh, that's right, it's on-line, freely available to everyone.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

If your request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, how do you know what's in it? How can you have objections at all? How can your objections possibly be valid and corroborated when you haven't seen it?

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

Good. TV shows and movies should not be taught as fact to school children. Doesn't Scholastic publish books? Do any children read them?

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

So why didn't he quit? That must be some buffet table.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

Imagine that -- television simply inventing several scenes for dramatic purposes. What is this world coming to?

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

All of whom are trying to rewrite history.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

Nooo, it is an admission that Iger caved in to your first letter and promised to make changes. Apparently, you now realize that all the editing in the world won't change the fact that the Clinton administration ignored attacks on us by Islamo-fascists.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Those great defenders of free speech now think it's "responsible" to ban a television show. And while we're at it, let's also ban other fictionalized movies such as The Sands of Iwo Jima, The Alamo, Porkchop Hill, The Wizard of Oz, etc.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey Chief Executive Officer William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton Office of William Jefferson Clinton

Oh, let me add that you're lawyers. Use your spell-checker.