...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

September 09, 2006

9/11 Film Controversy

I don't get this stupid controversy about The Path to 9/11. Democrats are thrashing about like a T-1000 in a vat of molten steel. What's the problem?

Is the movie defamatory? If it is then file a lawsuit. They might have a little trouble with the malice requirement, but that's one remedy.

It seems to me that the only objections Democrats have raised are that it's allegedly misleading, innacurate, and fictional. The truth is, they don't like the way it portrays Clinton. So fucking what. Since when have ex-presidents been immune from criticism? If they don't like it, why don't they do their own movie about how bad Bush is?

Oh that's right, they already did. It won the Palme d'Or.

And another thing. Isn't it government censorship when a bunch of Senators and Congressmen threaten ABC's license if they don't pull a tv show because of its political content? Isn't that prior restraint?

The DNC blog has a picture of a stack of 120,000 petitions they've printed. What they don't mention is that they're unsigned, but the picture is supposed to be impressive. I'm impressed that they think there are enough lemmings out there who care about a movie they haven't even seen yet.

And Daily Kos is now calling ABC, "GOP-TV." That is the funniest thing of all. Makes you wonder if they've ever watched ABC News. Would that it were true, it might take some of the heat off of Fox News.

A Kos writer also made the logically insupportable assertion the she "despise[d] censorship" and was in favor of "the free expression of even the most foul and erroneous ideas" except in cases when the speaker (in this case ABC) cannot be expected to "present a factual rebuttal" of its own speech.

By the same logic, Farenheit 9/11, a film that has made hundreds of millions of dollars to date, should never have been released unless Michael Moore also did a follow up film rebutting the lies in his original movie.

Jefferson and Madison would certainly have raised an eyebrow at that one.

Update: Kevin Kim have best comment.

I first read and thnk Bill Clinnton stuipd because is drama like "JFK" by Oliber Rock. "Is ONLY DRAMA BILL AND RELAX! Moreovering, you SUCK Monnica Lunski DIK is INCONTROVERTIBALLY FACT! YOU ONLY YOU!" I shoutted at moni tor.
Clik here to see.

Posted by annika, Sep. 9, 2006 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Jefferson and Madison probably would have raised an eyebrow, and probably Adams and Hamilton also, but some of the other Federalists might not have.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Sep. 9, 2006

There have been a number of books and hundreds of articles written over the years how Clinton was asleep at the switch when it came to terrorism.

What is ironic about this Demo-meltdown is that all of that documentation has been forgotten by most people. Not any more-all that material will be dredged up and put back into public view. Maybe we will have the debate that should have taken place in the 1990s.

Posted by: Jake on Sep. 9, 2006

Jake, would a debate truly have taken place in the 1990s? Perhaps I was asleep at the wheel also, but the only serious debate that I remember about terrorism at the time regarded the initial false accusations that the Oklahoma City bombing had been masterminded by Muslim extremists. I can't picture a climate in which 1990s America would have opted for greater anti-terrorist protections. Frankly, even 2000s America can't stomach significant anti-terrorist protections.

P.S. I thought more about the Alien and Sedition Acts and related issues, and went off on a tangent here.

Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Sep. 9, 2006


They did not have blogs in those days so a debate was not possible. MSM was suppressing most terrorism stories and experts, who were warning us, had no public forum.

Plus the Republicans were too chicken to stand up to Clinton. There were no blogs to kick them in the ass. For instance:

In 1996, Daschle’s wife (as head of the FAA) was ordered by the Republican Congress to come up with a list of banned items that the airport security people should search for. The Clintonistas ignored that order. The Republicans said nothing.

In 1996, the Republican Congress ordered the INS to create a computerized system for tracking the entry and exits of all visitors to the US. The Clintonistas ignored that order. The Republicans said nothing.

Posted by: Jake on Sep. 9, 2006

Ahhhhh, they're being weighed by the judgment of history, and being found wanting.

Posted by: Casca on Sep. 9, 2006

ABC's docu-drama..."The Pathway To 9/11"

It's only the truth

It's only our national security
It's only our fate and lives
It's only a rationalization away
To produce something completely contrived

How about it

Are you going to change the script
Are you going to bend over and cave in
Are you going to fold to the manipulations
Of the Clinton Political pressure and spin

9:19 pm
my comment to ABC
about their docu-drama
"The Path to 9/11"
transcribed this time
10:00 pm
here's the link to ABC's feed back department:



Posted by: neilsthepoet on Sep. 9, 2006

Maybe it's me and I'm not remembering this correctly because I drink a lot, but didn't the GOP make the very same noises not too very long ago about a TV movie about President Reagan?

Posted by: skippystalin on Sep. 9, 2006

Bery thank Annika is good to shouting out.^0^


Posted by: Kevin Kim on Sep. 10, 2006

It's time to come home. You've had one too many bottles of soju.

Posted by: Casca on Sep. 10, 2006