I don't think this is what they were going for...but all the hysteria in the media by Clinton and the democrats about how unfair The Path to 9-11 is to the Clinton administration and their efforts to suppress the show have led me to set it up to dvr. Yes, I am going to record it and watch it and see what all the fuss is about. I don't expect to see anything surprising because I already thought Clinton was partly responsible for 9-11. (Don't even get me started on Sandy Berger and his theft of documents or Jamie Gorelick serving on the 9-11 commission when she had a vested interest in preserving her own reputation as a member of the Clinton Administration. Remember the bad wall between the FBI and CIA? Gorelick built that wall.)
Ordinarily I wouldn't have watched a docu-drama such as this because I'm a firm believer that history should be historical not spiced up with fake scenes. I objected to Oliver Stone's JFK and the unfair portrayals for Richard and Pat Nixon and the Reagans in various Hollywood projects, so I wouldn't have watched this either but now I feel I need to support it just because of the efforts to supress it. Don't the democrats try to present themselves as the party protecting people's rights? Isn't this attempt to censor ABC kind of the opposite of that? Where did freedom of ideas or the press go? Why isn't the ACLU jumping in here protecting ABC's right to show this infotainment? This controversy is uncovering the deep pool of hypocrisy in which the democrats swim. Fictionalizing conversations between Pat and Richard Nixon which make them look horrible is okay--apparently in democrat-world, but fictionalizing conversations between Clinton administration officials is off-limits.