The Clinton-team caterwauling about ABC’s “Path to 9/11” was screechingly unpleasant, but then again, reputations are fragile things, and such docudramas invariably put the TV world’s imperative of entertaining over the perceived triviality of truth. There was reason to react.
There was no good reason, however, for the chilling threats of some Democrats against free speech — a favorite of hypocrites who are forever accusing conservatives of a fault that emphatically belongs to the left, a disloyalty to the precious principle of liberty.
Nor was there reason for the public to suppose the overall theme of Sunday night’s first-part showing was inconsonant with the political timidity, the legalisms and the bureaucratic fumbling of the Clinton administration in response to the threat of terrorism. The shame is that the creators of this marvelously gripping narrative thought it necessary to create historically inaccurate and unfair scenes to drive home their points instead of locating even greater dramatic power in the simple device of getting the facts right.
Had the makers of this film shown a tad more respect for who actually did what, they would also have deprived Bill Clinton and others on his team of ammunition in combating a demonstration of the very real possibility that — had they been made of sterner stuff — they could have captured Osama bin Laden and prevented Sept. 11.
It’s the far-from-absolving case that the film does occasionally value historicity, also takes on Bush administration faults in its second part and concedes some episodes are pure fiction. Compare that to Michael Moore’s one-sided, left-lauded, propagandistic “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which makes no admission of multiple errors, or of Oliver Stone’s “JFK,” a totally looney conspiracy flick that as much as accused a president of murder. Want to talk about irresponsibility so egregious as to gag a whale? Consider a new British, documentary-style film that contends Bush has irrevocably ruined America and includes a scene in which he is assassinated.
Finally, though, it doesn’t matter for purposes of protest that there have been worse historical films than this one, or that it has virtues interlaced with its sins. Just as conservatives kicked away at CBS for plans to air a misleading miniseries on Ronald Reagan, liberals and everyone else should have at ABC for this production. What’s inexcusable — and more important than the movie itself — is Harry Reid’s unsubtle warning to ABC that its license could be in jeopardy if it proceeded with the project.
The Democratic leader in the Senate — a man who wields real power despite being in the congressional minority — was among Democrats signing a letter that reminded ABC’s owners that they operated their TV network only with the permission of governmental licensing “predicated” on serving the “public interest” through an “accurate discussion of … events.” The Democrats have been here before. In the past presidential campaign, more than 80 members of the House Democratic Caucus asked the Federal Communications Commission to block Sinclair Broadcasting from showing a documentary on the pain inflicted on many Vietnam veterans by Democratic candidate John Kerry’s youthful denunciation of them as war criminals.
The left flailed at President Bush unmercifully as wanting to crush an outspoken press when he went no further than vehemently criticizing The New York Times for a story that may have weakened a perfectly legal and highly effective U.S. intelligence program.
But many on the left clearly care not a whit forfree speech unless it is their free speech, unless it is speech promoting their own agenda, their own take on the world, speech that might damage their ideological opponents. Let’s have a docudrama — a devastatingly accurate one — on this subject.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
