ABC, the alphabetical network, is going to air a 5-hour miniseries called "The Path to 9/11." This is all well and good, but said miniseries does something that so few miniseries or TV events do any longer: it shows the failings of both major parties. Typically, and my liberal friends will likely agree, TV events tend to cast conservatives in a negative light. I point to CBS' "The Reagans."
Turns out 9/11 was one of those events where both parties failed miserably. The attacks happened less than a year into George W. Bush's first term as president, yet to hear some liberal scholars and Democratic strategists talk, he should bear the blame for everything. But the fact remains that the walls in place among the intelligence community, walls that prevented the sharing of information, were built by Jaime Gorelick, during the Clinton administration. In fact, Clinton was offered bin Laden twice, but turned down the offer both times. (I personally equate this to Bush 41 calling off the Gulf War push in 1991 when troops were just miles from Baghdad.)
Well, the ABC miniseries has a scene that shows Sandy Berger (then National Security Advisor) denying authorization to the CIA to cature or kill bin Laden.(1.)
As soon as the Clinton camp heard this, the machine went into a frenzy, because as we all know, no Democrat has ever done anything that could possibly harm this nation later on, it's only Republicans who seek to kill our own people. But, yeah, the Clinton camp is in a fury over this portrayal of Sandy Berger. This is the same Sandy Berger who tried to sneak documents from the National Archives by hiding them in his pants and socks, and upon being caught, said it was just sloppiness. How sloppy do you have to be to get documents in your socks?
The Clinton Foundation, that's right, the Clinton's have their own foundation, says the miniseries is "factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate," while the DNC issued a mass email claiming it to be a "despicable, irresponsible fraud." These are the same people who said that conservatives were being childish when CBS aired "The Reagans" and Republicans claimed that CBS was not showing a balanced view of the truth.
ABC is now claiming that the changes are being made to reflect the more "general indecisiveness" in the days before the attacks.(2.) Bill Clinton himself has even gone on the offensive, warning ABC to either change the drama, or pull it altogether.(3.)
So now, because of the drama between ABC and the Clinton camp, "The Path to 9/11" is drawing more attention than previously imagined.
(1.) http://www.variety.com/VR1117949675.html
(2.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701454_pf.html
(3.)http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/
No comments:
Post a Comment