So Bill Clinton throws a hissy fit about an upcoming ABC mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" before he even sees it, eh?   How noble.   Seems he's got his joe boxers in a wad because he was "told" that the ABC series portrays him as being distracted by the impeachment debacle and let Osama bin Laden slip through his fingers when he had the chance to nab him.  Well, let's just ponder something for a moment:  do you think a U.S. president, facing impeachment over his official lies, might just be a bit distracted from the business of the day?  Isn't it true that the United States knew all about Osama during Clinton's presidency?   So ABC dared to connect the dots and suggest that perhaps the president, who seemed mighty busy doing things like chasing interns around the Oval Office desk with a cigar, might have been a bit preoccupied.  Big deal.

Now comes the reaction from ABC:  Don't panic, no one has seen the final product yet and we're still in the editing process.  Oh brother.   You know what that means, right?  A team of editors, sweating profusely, are working 24/7 to snip out all the offensive scenes detailed in Clinton's stupid 5 page letter to ABC honcho Bob Iger.  In fact, I can picture the editing team sitting at their editing bays with copies of the Clinton lawyer letter scotch-taped above their machines so that they can check off, one by one, all the scenes that the Clintonistas are objecting to.  After all, ABC can't possibly afford to tick off the Hollywood crowd that treats Billary like a pair of rock stars, right?

Prediction:  the scenes will be deleted, ABC will claim they were never there in the first place, and once more, the blowhard liberals win.

In the end, I suppose that's okay.  The people who stained the integrity of the presidency still have themselves to look at in the mirror, no matter what an ABC mini-series does or doesn't portray.

Boy, the TV news channels can't play the videotaped beating of the investigative reporter in Miami enough, it seems.  We love seeing an act of real-life violence, I guess, especially if it's directed towards a pesky, nosy reporter. 

But two questions keep popping into my brain when I see this guy get pummeled.  First, have you noticed how he makes absolutely no effort to fight back?  Who lets a guy walk up to him and start pounding away without any attempt to retaliate?  Is it possible that the reporter knew the camera was rolling and allowed himself to get beaten into a bloody mess for the benefit of his viewers?   And secondly, how about the cameraman who watched his reporter get beat up for about six minutes without lifting a finger to help him?  Witnesses said the attack lasted six minutes!  At no time, did the camera operator see fit to lay down his camera and come to the rescue of the reporter being attacked.  You know, if the reporter, the sound man, and the camera operator all fought this creep, he could have been the one with the blood running down his face, not the reporter.  But evidently, the cameraman has the same instincts as the reporter:  do whatever it takes to get a compelling story.

I think we're left with only one logical conclusion:  people who work in TV news are nuts.