It's also interesting that specific complaints from people such as Sandy (that's not a document in pants) Berger and Madeleine (I've never been wrong in my life) Albright are based not on their viewing of the series, but of someone else's account of certain scenes.....ah, ok....while they may in fact have a bone to pick they don't really know for sure. Of course you know darn well that anything that makes 9/11 look like anybody other than GW Bush's fault will be contested aggressively. I'm surprised these Clinton-ites aren't just saying 9/11 was a conspiracy and executed by the government under Carl Rove's direction. Oh wait...the planning and placement of all those building demolition charges and miles of wire had to be done before GWB was even elected..OH MY GOD....this proves that those crazy Bush cronies stole the election....they had to ensure they would be in office on 9/11!
The truth is only interesting to the left (of which the media is a major part of) when it supports their position. The stunning apathy on the left and in the main stream media that in fact the Valerie Plame leaker was an opponent of Bush policies named Richard Armitage. The calls from the left, and the MSM, for Bush to step down, impeachment for this and for Iraq, for someone to go to jail, that Rove, Cheney, etc. were evil and played with our security (as if Plame was a real operative), that this was just more proof of the evil right wing.....OOOPS......so are they calling for Armitage's balls?
I think the past behavior of those who are (and are yet to) yelling about this ABC series will in fact tell us that the events laid out in the drama may in fact be right on the money...at least thinking that puts a smile on my face.
Update: Hugh Hewitt has seen the ABC piece (unlike the complainers) and he says it's very critical of the Bush administration as well....but you don't see Bush or the GOP complaining do you? Clinton, who hasn't seen it, is saying he just wants it to be accurate...ok, any guesses on whether it will illustrate the 3 chances he had to take out Osama and didn't? A concise op/ed on Clinton's blown chances by Investors Business Daily.
Update: The new Dem power brokers, exemplified by the DailyKos, is employing an all out assault to censor or kill the ABC docu-drama.....the left is so mortified that it's base is so fragile that they can't survive any portrayal of their past leaders looking weak..truly amazing!
Update: UN-F'ing believable...the Democrats are the most chicken-sh*t bunch of hypocrites the world has known....they supposedly care about civil liberties...yet a docudrama that might paint any of them in a bad light must be pulled off the air? Can you imagine if Republican leadership was trying to pull this same stunt...the Dems would be making comparisons to book burnings, censorship and not trusting the public to make up their own minds whether ENTERTAINMENT was anything close to the truth. The Dems are cowards in facing scrutiny let alone in fighting the war on terror.
Update: You could have guessed this was going to happen....ABC is going to make changes to the content? If Clinton really did make a call to them I would love to hear it..... "Mr. Former President, but did Sandy really stop the CIA from doing it?" Clinton: "it depends on what your definition of IT is".
And as the WSJ's Tarranto put it "one wishes the Clinton people had been as aggressive in defending the nation from bin Laden as they now are in defending their own reputations." See his blog today, the story "Democrats Embrace Pre-Emption" midway down.
Sure, it's totally believable that Clinton wasn't distracted by the Lewinsky affair...that was just business as usual for Slick Willy!
Update: Excellent essay by Dean Barnett at TownHall on why the "Clintonistas" are all up in arms over this mini-series..and his final thoughts here:
But 9/11 changed everyone else's world view. It became apparent to most of America that we had to kill the would-be criminals before they actually became criminals. To most Americans, this was disquieting but a common sense necessity.
But the left never escaped its previousmind sett. Liberals remain exactly where they were 10 years ago; desirous of a policy that waits for a terrorist act and then lets law enforcement mop up the aftermath.
The fact that people are talking about the Democrats' attitude towards terrorism is horrifically damaging to the Democratic Party. There is, however, a way out for the Democrats. Truly, it would be best for the country and their party if they could arrive at a clearly articulated policy about what they would like to do, rather than simply loudly express primal emotions about how much they detest their domestic political opposition.
Alas, that's all they have. And this controversy brings their intellectually bankrupt status into the open.