What she said:

. . .there’s a difference between creating composite characters and dialogue to flesh out a scene, and inserting information that changes the factual nature of a line of documented history. I’m not alone in feeling that way. Republican politicians succeeded in getting CBS to yank "The Reagans" in 2003 using the same line of reasoning.

The campaign to pull "The Reagans" stemmed from the fear of besmirching a God-like political figure’s legacy when he was on his deathbed. It was over hurt feelings.

"The Path to 9/11 ," on the other hand, comes before a midterm election in which voters will be asked to decide which party has the ability to effectively combat terrorism and protect this country. Clinton’s administration, for better or worse, still defines the Democrats. This film makes him look like a boob who couldn’t thwart terrorism because he was too busy getting regular Lewinskys.

Some may argue that Bush and Rice don’t exactly come off as heroes either by the end of those five hours. And much of the perceived skew can be explained by the fact that it begins near the start of Clinton’s first term in office, and ends near the beginning of George W. Bush’s. That’s eight years of Clinton’s watch versus a few months of Dubya’s.

Still, Clinton supporters have ample reason to be angry. Before 9/11 , his administration took heat from conservatives for obsessing too much over hunting bin Laden. Ample documentation exists to support that so-called opinion. Yet, nowadays the party line is that Clinton did nothing.–Melanie McFarland, Seattle P-I.

Treat it like the Reagan film.  Take it off network, put it on cable.  There’s plenty of reason to believe that this whole project is a right wing hatchet job. Who’s paying for this commercial-free airing, anyway?  So de-politicize it by waiting until after the midterm elections and by cancelling the educational program associated with it.