I have here the statement from ABC, ladies and gentlemen. I’m holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. “The Path to 9/11 is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It’s a dramatization drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters, and dialogue and time compression. No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible. The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it’s fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.”
This is not news that they were going to put — I said earlier today, they were going to put graphics in front of this thing and say, hey, hey, hey, “This is not a documentary, it’s a dramatization drawn from a variety of sources: 9/11 Commission report, other published materials, and personal interviews. The movie contains fictionalized scenes.” The version I have does not say that. So that’s, you know, probably been added. “No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.” Well, they may not have seen the final version, but we’ve seen enough to know that they’re editing things out of it.
I, on Monday, will be able to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, what has been taken out of this, if anything. Because if they are responding to the Democrats, if they are responding to the thuggery and the bully tactics in the Clinton administration, if they do take those scenes out of there, I will know. Not only I, but the others who have seen it. Richard Ben-Veniste, a whole room of Democrats, saw the whole thing. I’m not the only one that’s seen it. So now they’re still editing. And when they announce that they’re editing it in the face of criticism from one political spectrum, the libs and the Democrats and the Clinton administration, well, the little red flags of curiosity start darting up. We will keep a sharp eye on this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
They’re not substantive and so forth. But I tell you, the Clinton people are making a big scene out of this, and it just strikes me again. It’s all about them. Are they concerned that maybe George Tenet has been misportrayed here? Are they concerned that the CIA maybe has been not fully accurately represented? No, they don’t care about any of that. It’s just about them. It’s just about them. If they’re making ABC, if they’re really pressuring Bob Iger at ABC to make substantive changes in this to please the Clinton people, then they’re going to have a big problem after this because they’re going to have shown that they will buckle. This is all premature. I’m just saying the way I read this, ‘No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.’
Well, they know what the main criticisms are. They know what the controversial parts of the movie are, and if they take them out, it’s not going to be good for them. And, you know, got the Clinton guys, even on TV, throwing Tenet under the bus. They don’t care. They will throw anybody under the bus, in the park, whatever, in order to save themselves. This legacy they have is just so flimsy, it’s so phony, built totally on spin. The idea that a five-hour TV movie can upset this legacy that they have established for themselves or that they think they’ve established for themselves.
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.