When ABC wanted to air a docu-drama miniseries about the events leading up to September 11th, the Clinton Administration, along with scads of other Democrats, complained about the depiction of Clinton, Berger, Albright and others in the film. While President, Bill Clinton passed up numerous opportunities to either capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, but he and members of his administration wanted ABC to cut any scene about such matters from the film. They claimed that the scenes in the film were "fictional" and "exaggerated" eventhough NewsMax.com published a recording of Clinton admitting his Bin Laden mistakes in a 2002 interview.

And so, as always, when something isn't going the way Democrats like, they run to their lawyers. Because of legal pressures being placed on ABC by Clinton's lawyers, the scenes revolving around Clinton's decision not to capture Bin Laden were edited.

Did the Bush Administration complain at all about blame being placed on them in the film? Nope. Did President Bush run to his lawyers when Michael Moore made an entire movie attacking him? Nope. In actuality, I can't recall one time when President Bush, or a member of his administration, sued someone for making a movie or show attacking them. Yet, when ABC tries to tell some form of the truth (the series is a "docu-drama," not a "documentary") Clinton jumps all over it and makes them change it.

Now look at this latest film debuting in Toronto: Death of a President. The film, made in England, depicts President Bush being shot and killed during a fictional visit to Chicago in 2007. The filmmakers went out of their way to make the movie as realistic as possible, digitally graphing President Bush's real face on to an actor's body. They splice this with real footage of Bush visiting Chicago on past occasions to make the whole thing seem all the more real. The movie then continues to show what it would be like under a Cheney presidency.

The mere idea that a filmmaker (a foreigner no less) would make a movie about the murder of a sitting president is indecent and uncalled for. You may disagree with the man and his policies, but going out of your way to make a realistic demonstration on how to kill him is ridiculous. But, as absurd as it all seems, President Bush has yet to sick a team of lawyers on the people responsible for this film. While I certainly think he should, as the film (unlike the ABC docu-drama) actually presents a security threat, it is important to note that he hasn't. Bush continues to take heat from the radical left, and he doesn't retaliate.

When President Clinton threatens to sue ABC for making a drama about his failures, it's considered righteous and deserved. If President Bush would ask that a film depicting his murder not be shown in America, people would cry that he was limiting someone's rights or taking away their freedoms. There is a double standard happening here that just isn't sitting well with me.