Thursday, September 07, 2006



ABC has issued a statement that its docudrama The Path to 9/11 "was still being edited and that criticism of the film's specifics were thus 'premature and irresponsible'." Never mind that the reason we know about the fabricated events in the docudrama is they sent out advance copies for selected rightwingers to preview and promote, and that it's improbable they'd send out a draft copy that wasn't ready for prime time. I think it's safe to interpret this statement as meaning they're going to delete the scenes that are causing the uproar. That's a problem for them, however. Television shows run for a specific length of time, so they're going to have to replace the scenes, not merely remove them. I have a few suggestions for filling up the time: It occurs to me that a TV show has to be a specific number of minutes long, to fill up the time slot. If ABC yanks the offending scenes, it's going to have to replace them somehow. They can include a scene where Dick Cheney rejects the Hart-Rudman report on national security, with all its recommendations for improving security at airports and like that. They could show Bush giving one of his Campaign 2000 speeches about how the military is overextended and demoralized, right before a scene dramatizing the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. If they want to replace a scene from the Clinton Administration with another scene from the Clinton Administration, they could show how the guy who planned the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was arrested, put on trial, convicted, and imprisoned. Or they could just show Bush sitting a Florida classroom staring blankly for seven minutes on September 11, 2001.

I'm looking forward to ABC including the scene where the Republican Congress rejects the recommendations of the Gore Commission on airline safety.

We could show an obese, arrogant Newt Gingrich accepting a check from the airline industry from the hand of John Boehner as Al Gore reads the paragraph:

The terrorist threat is changing and growing. Therefore, it is important to improve security not just against familiar threats, such as explosives in checked baggage, but also to explore means of assessing and countering emerging threats, such as the use of biological or chemical agents, or the use of missiles. While these do not present significant threats at present, it would be short-sighted not to plan for their possible use and take prudent steps to counter them.

The Commission believes that aviation security should be a system of systems, layered, integrated, and working together to produce the highest possible levels of protection. Each of the Commission's recommendations should be looked upon as a part of a whole, and not in isolation. It should be noted that a number of the Commission's recommendations outlined in the previous chapter, particularly those relating to certification and regulation, apply to the FAA's security programs, as well.


3.1. The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements.

Gingrich: "Your sick socialistic attempt to intrude big government into the efficient entrepreneurial workings of the magic of private enterprise is characteristic of the traitorous sabotage of the American economy by Democrat abortionists."

Too bad the Republican Congress wasn't aboard the flights they refused to defend.

Damn them all, for having stood in the way of those who tried to prevent 911.
The thing is that they're running this turkey -- which cost them $40 million to make -- without advertising.

They actually would be better off financially if they cancelled it and ran reruns of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition instead. (Especially since a lot of the sponsors for the rest of their prime-time programming are now withholding their ad money.)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

More blogs about politics.
Technorati Blog Finder