When ABC produced that movie on the Reagans, made by and essentially for critics of those people, I don't recall that this site felt any need to condemn the enterprise. Indeed, ABC was criticized for eventually not having the guts to air it. Now that the political slant is different. No praise for ABC's courage in airing a movie that takes a specific (and controversial) stand. And a weighty indictment of "historical inaccuracy" is brought to bear against the enterprise. I expected more evenhandedness here.

With the Republicans playing catchup in this fall's election campaigns, it is no surprise that their corporate sponsors are attempting a surrepticious campaign contribution in the form of prime-time propaganda. With the conservative movement now completely dependent on political stategies that manipulate the fearful, the uninformed, the misinformed and the stupid (almost half of the electorate is characterized by below average intelligence!) this re-write of history is about their only hope for holding on to their majority in the House.

ABC's "The Path to Bill Clinton" set to air Sunday and Monday is said by ABC's website to have cost $40 million in production costs.

Yet, they are airing this P.O.S. straight through with no commercial breaks.

It begs the question: Who paid for this thing? A network just doesn't plunk down $40 million because they have a taste for historical fiction.

Somebody gave ABC $40 million, or maybe ABC owed somebody $40 million and this is the payoff.

Chris,

CBS, not ABC, produced the Reagan miniseries.

Chris,

If the Reagan series, that I saw on DVD since it was pulled before broadcast, was previewed to Michael Moore and Al Franken, had Iran Contra Independant Council Lawrence E. Walsh as a paid consultant, "dramatized" a meeting where the Iranians agreed not to free the hostages in exchange for military parts, and showed Ronald Reagan as too mentally ill to run the country then I guess you'd have a point. But the Reagan show wasn't like that and you really don't have a valid point.

Did the show about Reagan say he was responsible for keeping the hostages in Iran? No. Does "The Path to 9/11" directly contradict the testimony before, and the conclusions of, the 9/11 commission? You bet it does.

It isn't courage to always represent the view of one side over the other; it's the easiest path.

This is about rewriting the history of one of the most traumatic experiences in US history as a complete fabrication right out of one of Rush Limbaugh's rants; that no matter how long Bush was president what happened in September of 2001 was Clinton's fault. It's in defiance of reality.

"Are there any men left in Washington, or are they all cowards?"

I would ask the executives at ABC the same thing.

The rightist desire for "evenhandedness" is not part of this equation, I think, especially considering the Reagan administration did away with "the fairness doctrine" in the eighties. The political culture we exist in today reflects what it means when fairness is jettisoned out the window.

I have been reading widely on this controversy, and the canard of the Reagan biopic is something one sees across the spectrum of Rightist blogs and opinion sites. But presidential biopics, notoriously fluffy and sentimental, are in no way comparative to the undertaking of examining something as deeply destructive to the national soul as 9/11, and its aftermath. For even though the ABC "disaster-of-the-week" redux (on a grand scale here) purportedly deals with the lead-up to 9/11, it is really the consequences that are being fought over on this gnarly, ugly ground.

Personally, I think it is an outrage that ABC would attempt to manufacture such a partisan film, especially at this moment of incredibly and indelibly partisan division on the national political stage. ABC's telefilm, if it stays true to initial reports, is a ham-fisted attempt to rewrite history along the lines of neo-conservative thought. Yes, intellectuals and thinkers and readers know the truth, but the diffusion of docu-drama images in our culture is too powerful, too insidious, to be allowed to play so clearly into partisan politics, and worse, partisan politics of resentment and vitriol that equate the Democratic Party with appeasers and in bed with Al-Qaida. Even more troublesome, ABC has been hawking the telefilm to middle- and secondary-school teachers, as a historical teaching tool! Perhaps as a modus of raw ideological excess, it is worthy.

How we got to this shocking and disgusting turn of events is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, however suffice it to say that it is incumbent upon good citizens of the Left and Right to resist this fantastical "history" and call upon ABC to edit out sections clearly made up to address a partisan political viewpoint. Make yourself heard, and contact ABC immediately.

We seem, ironically enough, to be living Orwell's nightmare twenty years post-1984, where the memory hole and doublespeak are the daily bread and butter of our media airwaves. This is a film that has the potential to demonstrate the banality of control Orwell was so concerned about. Enough is enough!

All docudramas reflect the authors' biases, but what is unique here is that the Bush Administration is still in power, and is still using 9/11 in a cynical manner for political gain in the run-up to the November elections. The ABC docudrama appears to support the lies of an administration that has never taken responsibility for its failures before 9/11 and afterwards. Blaming Clinton supports the Republican campaign stand that the Democrats can't be trusted on terrorism.

This movie reminds me of the "artistic documentaries" of the Stalin era, but with Bush riding his pick-up truck at Crawford replacing Stalin driving the tractor by the Kremlin.

People who knew Reagan and were in the White House at the time responed almost as one in saying how implausible the situations and dialogue were, particularly in reference to Reagan's reactions to gays and AIDS. So I think the comparison to the controversy here is valid.

Furthermore, do you really agree with posts here that the powers in the White House are controlling this movie, using a national network to release their propaganda? Isn't that a little farfetched?