• ABC makes a miniseries inspired by the 9/11 Report about the events (and non-events) that lead up to the September 2001 attack on the US.


• Word gets out that the movie is blunt in it's portrayal of mistakes and inaction on the part of the Clinton administration… mistakes that enabled and emboldened Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.


• Leftists and Clinton groupies go out of their minds (like here and here and here, for instance).


• Former members of the Clinton administration goes into full-tilt retro-spin.


• ABC asks that people see the film before they judge it, but then does begin to cave in, re-edits the film and agrees to run a disclaimer that the movie is partionally fictionalized (a claim they'd never made while producing and promoting the movie).


• Meanwhile, some of us plan to actually watch the damned thing and then make up our minds about it.

Regardless of ones political leanings, I think it is despicable for 9/11 to be fictionalized and history rewritten simply for political gain. Does ABC have no shame? Are the nearly 3000 lost souls of that horrific day just political tools, now?

I have no problem with a FACTUAL documentary on the events leading up to 9/11. There is plenty of blame to go around, to both democratic and republican administrations. Telling the truth is always a great way to go. But to completely falsify information, and then LIE about falsifying it, especially about an event still so painful to many people, is just way below acceptable.

I seem to recall when CBS tried to "fictionalize" a Reagan "docudrama", the conservatives and republicans were so incensed that the program was finally pulled. Are those same people going to be equally incensed about this "swiftboating" debacle?

The ruckus raised by Clinton supporters and leftists over this movie has been surprising.

In a previous comment, IMDb user "Ed" wrote "Regardless of ones political leanings, I think it is despicable for 9/11 to be fictionalized and history rewritten simply for political gain." I'd ask Ed a number of questions: How does broadcasting a movie qualify as rewriting history? In your opinion, do movies such as Fahrenheit 9/11, for instance, qualify as rewriting history? Have you seen this TV movie, read the script, read a treatment of the script, or had any access to this material prior to the movie's upcoming broadcast? For years, the American left has been sympathetic to any artistic expression that offends conservatives or religious people. Now there's a movie that, according to some, might portray their Golden Boy, Clinton, in a less than amorous light. None of us have seen the movie yet, but at the mere suggestion, the left is up in arms.

I'd suggest that those on the left take the same advice they've given others for years: "If you don't like the content, don't watch the movie." I'd also suggest that you'd be ahead to see the film before you decide if you like it, if it's factual, etc. Meanwhile, there are many people who are interested in seeing the film, who remember the historical events (pre and post 9/11) that it proposes to portray, and who are capable of checking other resources and deciding for ourselves if the movie is accurate or not.

Any movie about this subject matter is going to encourage debate. I'd ask those on the left who don't want this movie shown to consider the transparency of their actions. Why is the prospect of debate so threatening? Why do you want the debate strangled before it starts? Are you afraid that it's a debate you can't win?

Ed writes: " But to completely falsify information, and then LIE about falsifying it, especially about an event still so painful to many people, is just way below acceptable." I'd like the chance to see the film and decide for myself if that's the case, Ed. Why do you find that prospect so threatening?

Honestly, Ed, the idea that Hollywood (of all places) would really do anything to tarnish the legacy of their favorite President is, at best, amusing.

Permalink -- Posted by Darrell at 09:05