ST reader GWR pointed out this story yesterday, noting that Right Wing Nuthouse’s Rick Moran wrote about it at The American Thinker, and I wanted to expand on it here some myself. The LA Times’ Martin Miller wrote a story yesterday which provides a possible explanation why ABC’s controversial docudrama Path to 9-11 hasn’t been released yet on DVD yet. It’s a very interesting story you should read in full. Here are some excerpts (emphasis added by me):
Among the nearly two dozen television DVDs slated for nationwide release on Sept. 11 is the second season of “Bones,” the third season of “Grey’s Anatomy” and the miniseries “The Starter Wife” that aired earlier this year. Not on the list on that day or any other in the near future is last year’s highly controversial “The Path to 9/11.”
The $40-million, five-hour ABC miniseries, which recently received seven Emmy nominations and drew a combined two-night audience of more than 25 million viewers, is for now on the path to nowhere. Its Amazon page reads: “Currently unavailable. We don’t know when or if this item will be back in stock.”
With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries’ writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it’s crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.
Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
“Whatever anyone may think about me or this movie, this is a bad precedent, a dangerous precedent, to allow a movie to be buried,” added Nowrasteh, who received death threats even before the miniseries was broadcast last September. “Because the next time they’ll go after another movie. The Bush administration may go after a movie. The next administration may go after a movie. No matter who it is, they may go after a movie. I think this town needs to stand up.”
I think Nowrasteh’s claims have a significant amount of credibility to them, considering the efforts by Democrats in the Senate, as well as Clinton’s lawyers, to force ABC into putting a lid on the movie. Those efforts included:
- 9/6/06: House Democrats “demand accuracy” on Path to 9-11 docudrama
- 9/8/06: Senate Democrats threaten to revoke ABC’s broadcast license over Path to 9-11 “inaccuracies”
- 9/9/06: Clinton’s lawyers get in on the act, demand of ABC that Path to 9-11 be pulled (more on that here)
Could ABC be worried about a lawsuit if they proceeded to release P2911 on DVD? Or is this more of an attempt to protect a candidate they’d favor over all the other presidential hopefuls?
The media’s zealousness to protect Hillary Clinton isn’t a recent development. Back in 2001, shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Senator Clinton spoke at Madison Square Garden at a benefit rock concert for 9-11 victims. She was booed and heckled by many in the audience, but you wouldn’t know it by watching the DVD:
During his July 12 20/20 look at media manipulation and distortions, Stossel used the Hillary Clinton incident as his first example.
Stossel explained: “Last fall Paul McCartney headlined a concert to benefit victims of September 11th. Some politicians appeared, including Senator Hillary Clinton.” Over the booing of Senator Clinton as she walked on stage and waved, Stossel noted: “And people in the audience booed her. Booed and heckled.”
Stossel told viewers: “But then MTV’s channel VH1 re-ran the same concert and made it into a DVD.” As 20/20 showed the same scene again, but this time VH1’s new version with applause, Stossel pointed out: “Notice a difference? The booing has been removed. Now and forever on the DVD the crowd applauds Senator Clinton.”
There’s a Real Player video clip at that link as well.
Hillary has also made it clear that her Socialistic tendencies run deep, like in a speech she made back in June where she asserted that “something has to be taken away from some people,” which was a repeat of a remark she made back in June 2004 to an audience of well-off supporters:
Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters â€“ some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend â€“ to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.
“Many of you are well enough off that … the tax cuts may have helped you,” Sen. Clinton said. “We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
These remarks are outrageous and worthy of further examination by the mainstream press, who would slam GWB up one side and down the other if he made remarks that suggested that some people were going to have to sacrifice in order for others to benefit for the “common good.”
Now, some people might be thinking: “Well what about the emerging Hsu scandal? Hillary’s come under the microscope since the story broke of his fundraising on her behalf.” I want you to take a close look at those stories. Most of them aren’t exploring in depth Hillary’s relationship with the fugitive Norman Hsu. They’re exploring how Hsu operated, which may or may not in the near future reveal more about Hillary’s dealings with him. Rest assured, if GWB or any prominent Republican been associated with Hsu, we’d get front page, wall to wall, in-depth reports on just how cozy they were. Kinda like what they did with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who Time Magazine tried to associate with GWB even though the only picture they had of the two of them together happened to be when they were standing in the same room at the same time – but not together. There were so many people in the room that Time, in the interest of ‘helping’ their readers, put a circle around Abramoff’s head just so we’d know which one he was. Incidentally, Jack Abramoff had ties to Democrats, too, but they were ties the media largely ignored, save for the rare story here or there that went nowhere.
Is ABC being strong-armed into holding back on the release of P2911 on DVD? Or is this just an effort on their to protect Hillary Clinton from being associated with her husband’s failed counterterrorism efforts (which I recapped here (scroll down to see relevant quotes)? I don’t know, but either way, the suppression of this film shouldn’t be tolerated.
Please contact ABC and let them know how you feel about it.