What in the hell is going on?
Just when you think it couldn’t get any worse, we find out this evening through several news links provided by Allah that rather than revise ABC’s “The Path to 9-11“, the Demofascists want it pulled altogether.
Proof? First, via AP (emphasis added):
Former Clinton administration officials, historians and a Democratic petition with nearly 200,000 signatures urged the network to scrap the five-hour drama.
A group of historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Princeton University’s Sean Wilentz, wrote to ABC parent Walt Disney Co. CEO Robert Iger, urging him to scrap the series. They said that permitting inaccuracies to heighten drama is “disingenuous and dangerous.”
The Democratic National Committee said it delivered a petition with nearly 200,000 signatures to ABC’s Washington office urging the network drop its “right-wing factually inaccurate mocudrama.”
Former national security adviser Samuel R. Berger and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, whose depictions are at the center of the controversy, asked Thomas Kean, the Republican ex-governor of New Jersey who led the commission looking into the attacks, to use his influence with filmmakers to pull it.
“You can’t fix it,” Berger said on CNN. “You gotta yank it.”
You gotta yank it.
Next up, DNC Chair Howard Dean calling for the series to be pulled and joining in the vieled threats game (again, emphasis added):
It’s deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation’s history. ABC should not air this distortion of history.
The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions. The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda. Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest. It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth.
Comprende? The message: Even if you do revise it, don’t air it, because it was written by a right-winger whose sole mission is to distort the Clinton legacy. If you do decide to air it, expect to be questioned and grilled about whether or not you deserve to be able to retain your broadcast license.
Apparently the Dr. of Disology hasn’t been informed that the executive producer of this docudrama is a Democrat who has a history of supporting Bill Clinton and other Democrats.
It’s disgusting that right here before 9-11, the worst terrorist attack to ever hit our nation, and the event that was the catalyst for the war on terror – a war in which we’re fighting to spread freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq – that Howard Dean and other Demofascists in his party are issuing threats over a mini-series because it portrays Bubba and Co. and their record on terrorism in an unflattering light. So much for setting a good example of what life is like in a free society!
I wrote the following a couple of days ago, and think it’s worth mentioning again:
There is a reason Sandy Berger got caught with taking highly classified documents on the thwarted Y2K terrorist attack from the National Archives and intentionally destroying them. There are things that the Clinton administration did not do that they don’t want you to know about. The 9-11 Commission report mentioned some of them, but how many people actually read it? I believe the Clinton admin knows more people will watch this docudrama than read the 9-11 Commission report, and that’s what’s got them (and the Clinton faithful on the left) so fired up. They were content with their inaction being documented in the commission’s report because of two things 1) because the report put equal blame on both admins and 2) only diehard political junkies would read it.
The Democrats are running scared right now – for a reason, and one we all know:
This movie, obviously, strikes at the heart of the Democrats’ weakness: their, ahem, questionable ability to fight the war on terror. National security has been an issue they’ve been especially weak on since 9-11, and the only reason they are polling higher on it now is because people are frustrated with the war in Iraq. Has nothing to do with people actually thinking Democrats could turn things around there, because if Democrats could turn things around there they would have released a more comprehensive plan to the public that went beyond a cut and run strategy, a strategy that is, sadly, winning the hearts and minds of more and more Democrats. Strange, eh? They don’t want to look weak on national security, but they put all their weight behind cut and runners like Ned Lamont. You cannot make this stuff up.
The old saying goes something like “methinks the lady doth protest too much” – in this case, the Democrats are doing just that: they’re protesting too much. In fact, they’re going further than just protesting, they’re actively pushing ABC to cancel this docudrama and are issuing veiled threats about revoking their broadcast license. Now, they don’t have the authority to do that, but the fact that they are even suggesting it sends a cold shiver up my spine.
I have seen Democrat after Democrat complain and b!tch about Bush over the years and how he supposedly likes to ‘suppress’ contrary speech at events in which he appears, but strangely enough I don’t see those same Democrats complaining now when there’s a real effort to suppress freedom of speech under threat by people in their own party. In fact, I haven’t seen a single Democrat in Congress, or anywhere else, protest this despicable move by the DNC.
The DNC’s new motto should be: Free speech for me, but not for thee!
Here is, once again, the Clinton’s approach to terrorism:
Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, do nothing about evil
Never forget 9-11. And never forget that the Clinton administration’s gross incompetency at a time when Al Qaeda was growing stronger contributed to it much more than they want you to know. No amount of editing, revising, whitewashing, or shelving a story can change that fact, no matter how much the Clintonistas and the DNC would like it to. They can try to fight the truth in an election year, but the truth can’t be revised. It is what it is.
More: Ed Driscoll makes a great point:
“Democrats can fight long, hard, and dirty when they want to. If they actually chose to defend America itself against its enemies with as much force as they deploy during election-time, they would never have to rely on such tactics in the first place.”