Thursday, September 07, 2006

Path to 9/11's taken a few days but the "controversy" over the 9/11 movie has finally erupted with the former Clinton Administration demanding major overhauls to the movie (in, what, 3 days?). Apparently the Clinton Administration is not shown in the best light...missing opportunities to capture Bin Laden, minimizing the threat in order to preserve the Clinton legacy of peace in Israel (how has that worked out?), and, for the most part, being a bunch of bumbling idiots more concerned about interns than policy.

Well, that's how I'm guessing it's playing out...of course, I haven't seen it. Now, obviously, I have no idea what really happened in the years leading up to 9/11 and what opportunities were missed and what really happened behind closed doors. Some "academics" are claiming it was an inside job...who knows. What I do know is that ABC had better not cave to the demands of the Clinton Administration to change this movie. Let's look back, shall we:

Michael Moore made a "documentary" about 9/11 which claimed the Bush Administration dropped the ball. The Bush Administration covered up aspects of 9/11. The Bush Administration assisted Saudi families in leaving the country. And the Bush Administration failed to recognize the threats leading up to 9/11. And, well, a lot of his information proved to be false and there was outcry on the right but it never stopped the movie from being distributed AS IS with factual errors. The movie is still cited by some on the left as absolute fact and is touted continually as the final word on 9/11.

Well, now there's another movie showing the failures of the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton, himself, broke the story about passing up the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden during his administration. There were embassy bombings while Clinton was in office. Heck, they tried to blow up the towers while Clinton was in office...there's no disputing that. So, obviously there were signs that the Great Bill and his SOS Albright missed or didn't want to see. And, that is, for the most part, the focus of the movie from what I can tell.

So, let's say there might be a factual error or so...the Clintonistans need to address those like the Bush's had to address Moore's slanderous movie. But to pull or change the movie is unacceptable. What about the 1st Amendment? If Bush succeeded in suppressing Moore's movie, can you hear the lib outcry? Well, same argument here...there's enough facts to make this movie. And if Bubba doesn't like his portrayal, let him argue it after the fact.

Personally, as I've said before, everything around 9/11 has become political and you can't make a movie about those events without someone scrutinizing which side of the aisle it falls on. I don't know if I'll watch the movie or not...but Bubba's demand that it not be shown definitely piques my interest. It will be interesting to see what happens with this whole episode...

1 comment:

Davis said...

I think the difference here is that it's being aired on ABC during primetime, and passed off as a documentary, whereas Farenheit 9/11 was a movie, and overall a crappy one at that.

Either way, I don't see one movie touting, "But Clinton.." will swing tons of voters to Conservative land. Likewise, I didn't have any republpicans shining my shoes when Moore's movie came out. Anyone intelligent enough to follow foreign policy probably already has their mind made up on the subject.

I can't find an actual quote by Clinton demanding it be censored. Google News hath failed me. What did he actually say?