[mainepatsfan]

The part the Clintonoids were so upset about is the a scene in which they call off a hit on Bin Laden when they have him within their sights. If you don't see it then we know Disney cut it.

[Aussiebabe]

So far it hasn't gotten that far, it is still in 1995 when they are trying to catch the mastermind of the WTC in Pakistan (with Pakistan's help).

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

Re: the "Great Controvery Miniseries", I posted this the other day and thought it bore repeat.

---

To: A.Hun
"I believe they are going to get slammed for this...."

If ABC runs the series with no edits, but adds a disclaimer every thirty seconds to CYA, John Q is going to watch the movie, ignore the disclaimers and the dims are screwed.

If ABC edits h*** out of it and adds the disclaimers, the word that they've done so is still going to get out (especially after all the fuss and feathers from the dims), John Q is going to smell a very large skunk in the woodpile, and both ABC and the dims are screwed.

If ABC pulls the series, everybody from Rush to the Viking Kitty is going to absolutely go bugnuts on the network and every dim in sight or hearing (I've already started my letter to Max Baucus, but have had to stop because I don't want to beat up on my keyboard that much without just cause), the national circulation of the Bootleg copy of the original is going to set records and ABC and the dims might as well apply for asylum in the Cuban embassy. (There's one in Toronto, I think.)

I'm actually thinking about hooking my TV set back up for the weekend, just so I don't miss the fun.

75 posted on 09/08/2006 1:52:52 PM MDT by Unrepentant VN Vet (I can't really accept a welcome home until the last MIA does.)

---

BTW, I actually did hook the antenna back up, but got so buried in drivel when I turned the TV on to check the channel settings that I may only turn the thing on again to watch the first couple minutes of the program to get a feel for which distractor ABC went for, then put a proper finish on that letter to my dim "representatives".....ALL two of 'em.

[saveliberty]

Betsy Newmark goes after Sandy Berger and his role regarding 9/11 here

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2006/09/its-about-time-that-people-remember.html

[Morgan in Denver]

I am prepared for the Path To 9-11 to be like Clinton's grand jury testimony: more bluster than fact.

If ABC reveals the truth about Clinton, Albright or Berger I'll be surprised. Or, they will cover it but downplay their culpability in helping foster the atmosphere that encouraged 9-11 to happen.

It does not matter, really.  Rush and others will comment if anything is left out, and eventually the whole uncut program will be available.  In the mean time, both sides will be using this program as evidence their side was right.   

If it's being shown in Australia now and still going through an edit process here, then there will be different versions anyway. 

 This program is a win-win as far as I'm concerned.  It focuses attention on 9-11, it will show the events that happened during the Clinton years and it will remind voters on what's at stake for the election in November. It has also shown Democrats are willing to trash the First Amendment to stop the exposure as they lie to voters today.  The pressing questions for candidates has to include why did Democrats pressure ABC to change the Path To 9-11? What did Democrats feel they had to hide from viewers?  As to lies, should we believe ABC or convicted liars Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger?  Does anyone really believe Clinton would have taken responsibility for a bombing that killed civilians and missed Bin Laden?