[Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat]

Hugh Hewitt got an e-mail from, I believe the Wingnut producer of ABC's "Paths to Truthiness," (Think Progress says an ABC "insider," but I think they have misread the e-mail, which is clearly written from the perspective of someone who does not work for ABC). The funniest part for me is this:

The story here is the backlash that the Disney/ABC execs experienced was completely unexpected and is what caused them to question themselves and make these changes at all. Had this been the Bush Admin pressuring, they wouldn't have even taken the call. The execs and studio bosses are dyed in the wool liberals and huge supporters of Clinton and the Democratic Party in general. They had no idea any of this could happen. As I understand this, the lawyers and production team spent literally months corroborating every story point down to the sentence.

Down to the sentence? The fictional, dramatization sentence you mean? Let me put it this way - if this is true, and I believe it is completely false, or if you will - a "dramatization" - then ABC needs some new lawyers - as the central scene involving the Clinton Administration is utterly and completely false. Did the ABC lawyers decide that it was "fake but accurate"? How do they know? Apparently , NOT based on the 9/11 report or the first hand accounts of Richard Clarke, Roger Cressy, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright or Sandy Berger.

Seems like ABC's source material for "Paths to 9/11 Truthiness" was the comments section at Little Green Footballs. The law firm of Moe, Larry, Curly and the GOP (I think Chalabi and Bolton made partner this year) was good to go -"Fake But Accurate."