During John Stewart’s recent “Rally for Sanity” there were all of the usual signs one would expect the Left wants us to forget about. Signs about “9/11 truth” and the popular “teabagger” slur to Hitler comparisons and references to McCarthy, it’s all terribly predictable and boring. If these people want to do some research about the real Senator McCarthy and what he did then maybe they would learn that many of today’s Democrats have incorporated similar tactics.
On September 10th and 11th, 2006, The Path to 9/11 aired to an audience of 28 million viewers gaining seven Emmy nominations. It was a major success for ABC and Disney. Everyone involved was proud of the unbiased portrayal they created about the lead up to 9/11 from the 1993 attack on the WTC to September 2001. However, the miniseries almost didn’t air when the leftists began to circle their wagons before even seeing the film. It is eerily similar to when yellow journalist William Randolph Hearst rallied his troops in Hollywood to get all copies of Citizen Kane destroyed in 1941. Fortunately, you can still watch Orson Welles’ great film.
As chronicled in the great documentary, Blocking The Path to 9/11, the Clinton camp got wind of The Path to 9/11 after the first half of it aired for the National Press Club. Shortly thereafter, their machine began to chew away at the project. Pundits and policymakers who had not seen a frame of celluloid rallied against the film as some kind of right-wing propaganda. The silly accusations have been refuted on numerous occasions by people involved with the project. Cyrus Nowrasteh who wrote and produced The Path to 9/11 has commented about his approach to the film:
The tactics of these Washington lawmakers — and their supporters — are no less than modern McCarthyism, something historians are keen to study, as long as it’s fifty years ago. MoveOn.org sent out e-mails demanding the movie be “yanked,” and accusing me of being a “right-wing activist who fabricated key scenes to blame Democrats and defend Republicans.” Anyone who has seen the movie knows this last claim is ridiculous. We are just as hard on the Bush administration failures as we are on those of the Clinton administration.
First, anyone who actually took the time to watch the film knows it is the most accurate account about the pre-9/11 world to date (ABC had it fact checked extensively before airing). Second, anyone who has ever met Cyrus knows he is not only one of the nicest guys in Hollywood, but he is most certainly not driven primarily by any political party. He is a filmmaker first and foremost; his primary goal is always to make a truthful picture. Take a look at his track record of films; it’s hardly a canon of partisanship. Cyrus comments about his drive for honesty:
I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for “The Path to 9/11.” I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal-to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.
The spin surrounding this film continues to this day, we started a Facebook group (join here) dedicated to keeping people informed about the censorship around The Path to 9/11. On more than one occasion the group was flagged as “abusive” and was shut down. Of course, the page always goes back up because there is nothing abusive about it. Please join the page and sign the petition (provided here) and pass it along to anyone interested in stopping censorship in Hollywood. Our goal is to make sure people know why this successful film has been buried. When asked, Disney always uses the same cop out, “it’s a business decision.” Big Hollywood‘s own Mark Tapson worked on The Path to 9/11 and commented about it earlier this year:
Tom Borelli, however, is not baffled by this business plan. Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project and a Disney shareholder, Borelli knows that this has less to do with a “business decision” and more to do with an ABC television project that drove former President Bill Clinton to near-apoplexy in his infamous interview with Chris Wallace, and which by extension is perceived to be a threat to the political future of Mrs. Clinton. Borelli has pointed out that Iger has been a steady Clinton donor since before the former first lady was elected to the Senate, and has accused Iger of protecting Hillary’s presidential campaign at the expense of shareholders. (Path screenwriter/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh himself was told privately by an ABC executive that “If Hillary weren’t running for President, this wouldn’t be a problem.”)
There was nothing wrong with the film and ABC knows it. In fact, the network planned on airing it annually in memory of the victims on 9/11. Unfortunately, political intimidation and censorship is still alive and well in America. It is our job to let Washington know they cannot censor us or decide what films we can and cannot watch. We must keep fighting to get The Path to 9/11 out of its locked state so people who want to see it can. It is important that we don’t give up and let the Clinton’s Stalinist fist have the final say in Hollywood. For more information please see the documentary Blocking The Path to 9/11 before the Clinton’s make another Hearst-esque maneuver.