“Path to 9/11″ screenwriter slams lefty hysteria

posted at 2:06 am on September 18, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view

“Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line,” he says. Which is great. But um, what’s with the composite scenes, then?

No matter. As with images of George Bush being shot through the heart, it’s “larger truths” we’re after here. One such truth being that if your reality doesn’t have the reality-based seal of approval, you’d best wear Kevlar:

The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham’s possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father’s outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently, you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.

Howard Dean didn’t even mention Cunningham when he called for the film to be yanked. The fact that Nowrasteh is conservative (or, at least, too conservative for Dean-o’s liking) was sufficient to taint it indelibly.

But enough chit-chat. Here are the last two, completely silent minutes of “Path to 9/11.” It picks up immediately after the crash of Flight 93, which followed a depiction of Deena Burnett on the phone saying goodbye to her husband, Tom. Judge for yourself whether this film was written by a Bush apologist. I left the disclaimer in, too. Just because.

Update: The Times wonders, how can showing “Path” be a public service if leftists don’t like it?

Blowback

You must be logged in to post a comment.