BCT Editorial – 9/12/06

This page was last updated on September 16, 2006.

Deja vu; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Some Clinton administration officials were hopping mad at what they perceived as the mischaracterization of their roles in the events leading up to Sept. 11, 2001, in an ABC docudrama.

“Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote a letter to the network demanding it correct or not air ‘The Path to 9/11.’”

[RWC] The Times will be loathe to admit it, but just about all conservatives stated any errors that may exist should have been corrected before the movie aired.

Regarding Sandy Berger, let’s not forget he acknowledged “intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration’s record on terrorism” from the National Archives.¹ It seems clear there’s something Mr. Berger doesn’t want the world to know about this period.

“Former President Clinton also urged the network to re-evaluate the content of the two-part series.

“This call for censorship came even though at the time they had not seen the final version of the docudrama.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note Congressional Democrats threatened the licenses of ABC owned broadcast stations.

“Of course, sight-unseen criticism is nothing new.”

[RWC] I don’t believe this is true. You see, criticism by the Clintonistas detailed specific dialogue and scenes to which they objected.

The real problem for the Clintonistas is there is no way to make Bill Clinton look good in this aspect of his administration. Time after time from February 1993 (the first WTC bombing) through the attack on the USS Cole (October 2000), the U.S. failed to take effective action against Islamofascists. Just as Democrats/liberals today, the Clinton administration viewed terrorism as a law enforcement issue.

I’m not bashing Bill Clinton. I honestly don’t know if we would have done anything different if a Republican had been president.

Finally, the movie didn’t make me angry with Bill Clinton. Neither Bill Clinton nor members of his administration attacked us, Islamofascists did.

“Remember a few years ago when high-ranking Ronald Reagan defenders went on the warpath over a docudrama of his presidency and life without having seen it?”

[RWC] I expected the Times to come to the defense of the Clintonistas and use the movie “The Reagans” as cover. As a side note, while “The Reagans” didn’t air on CBS broadcast stations, it did air on CBS’s cable network Showtime. Regarding Regan supporters not having seen the movie, they had the script and that served as the basis for their criticism.

Here are the differences as I see them.

According to CBS, “The Reagans” was pitched as a love story. It turned out to be a character assassination piece that portrayed President Reagan as little more than Mr. Magoo. Lest we forget, this has always been the Democrat/liberal view of Ronald Reagan. While Democrats/liberals may be a little more vicious toward President Bush, they got their practice on Ronald Reagan.

Second, CBS said the movie didn’t meet their criteria for political films. That’s why CBS also didn’t air Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”

Third, “The Reagans” cast was populated with Reagan opponents and the wife of the actor portraying Mr. Reagan (James Brolin) was Barbra Streisand, an outspoken liberal activist.

Finally, at the time of the movie, Ronald Reagan was in the final stages of Alzheimer’s disease and only months from death. While Bill Clinton can defend himself against any false accusations, that was not an option for Mr. Reagan.

1. Berger Will Plead Guilty To Taking Classified Paper; John F. Harris and Allan Lengel; The Washington Post; April 1, 2005.