As you may or may not know, this coming weekend, ABC is presenting a movie about the events that led up to the attacks on the WTC in 2001, called "The Path to 9/11".
It has leaked out by various critics and folks who have been offered an advanced screening of this flick that the Clinton administration does not come out looking too strong on National defense in the years prior to the attacks on that fateful day. In fact, it shows them as responsible for one misstep and failure after another in the face of plenty of forewarning that the situation was quickly escalating.
In light of that depiction, for the last week or so, there have been some pretty persistent rumors that, after these screenings, various members of the Clinton administration, including the ex-president himself, began a campaign of calls, meetings and efforts to cajole ABC into altering and editing the film to make the Clintons look better.
In fact, Hewitt is reporting that alterations and edits WERE made to some extent or another after the Clintonista's complaints.
So, the question I have is this: where are all the media elites carping about "artistic integrity" for ABC and the producers and artists involved in this film? Why are they not baying at the moon, where is the gnashing of teeth over the fact that political honchos are trying to strong arm them into making changes to their "art", changes that might make those politicos look better??
Could it be that none of these "artists" so worried about the integrity of their "art", these zealots of personal creative freedom, don't want to say anything because the changes just MIGHT make their pal Bill Clinton look better in the end? Or that it might make him look bad for even trying to force the changes in the first place?
Could it be that their "art" is not so sacred if changes in it benefits THEIR favorite politicians?
Something to contemplate, isn't it?