9/8: Just Like They Drew It Up?

Glenn Greenwald is right, the current kerfuffle over ABC's "The Path To 9/11" docudrama is much more like the righty blogger take-down of CBS' "The Reagans" than it is like Rathergate. That said, the lefties still have not yet crossed the finish line on this one. Is an all-out pulling of the miniseries the only outcome that could be called a victory? What if the ex-NSA Sandy Berger non-assassination of bin Laden scene is pulled, but the movie airs a mostly intact? And what if this is all just an elaborate scheme to promote the film while still managing to get the most egregious scenes into the public domain? After all the only scenes the Blogometer has seen so far are the objectionable ones.

Senate Dems scored big with their letter to Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger, demanding ABC pull their planned "The Path to 9/11" docudrama. AMERICAblog has video of Sen. min leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and writes:

The Senate Democratic leadership just threatened Disney's broadcast license. Not the use of the word "trustee" at the beginning of the letter and "trust" at the end. This is nothing less than an implicit threat that if Disney tries to meddle in the US elections on behalf of the Republicans, they will pay a very serious price when the Democrats get back in power, or even before.

Ex-NE Sen. Bob Kerrey (D), ex-Pres. Bill Clinton attorney Bruce Lindsey, and ex-Defense Sec. William Cohen all questioned ABC's judgement for fictionalizing portions of the 9/11 story. Meanwhile Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe reports Team Clinton will only be satisfied with a complete yanking of the series.

Over at DailyKos, Hollywood producer Robert Green speculates on Disney's motives:

[ABC] marketing took one look at this movie and said -- hey, Rush Limbaugh will love this. So will Hugh Hewitt. Remember, ABC owns lots of radio as well, and in particular right-wing talk radio. Synergy! And their audience will watch our movie if they tell them to (they don't call them dittoheads for nothing.) So marketing took the ball and ran with it (probably with cyrus's "friend of limbaugh" help). That's all about generating ratings and buzz.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald argues we've seen this script before:

When CBS announced in November, 2003 that it would broadcast a mini-series it produced about Ronald and Nancy Reagan called "The Reagans," Matt Drudge obtained excerpts from the script and published them. That led to right-wing bloggers, organizations and pundits, along with the RNC itself, demanding that CBS cancel the broadcast, which it did (moving it instead to Showtime, with a panel discussion afterwards filled with critics of the film). Those who wanted the mini-series cancelled back then were making arguments which are highly relevant -- for reasons that are self-evident -- to ABC's plans to broadcast an indisputably fictionalized mini-series about 9/11, a film which includes exactly the fabricated dialogues and historical events which served as the ostensible basis for outrage over The Reagans.

If ABC was hoping righty bloggers would defend the film wholeheartedly they were wrong. Still, those on the right think the docudrama should air after some minor editing...but they aren't expecting that will mollify the lefties. Allahpundit at Hot Air writes:

You can't play nice with them. I conceded they had a point about the scene with Sandy Berger. Ace conceded it. Dean conceded it. Geraghty conceded it. Others have conceded it. Facts is facts, and "composite" scenes play a little too loose for a film about 9/11. But the fightin' nutroots wanted to see some fight, and Reid - who suddenly seems willing to crap in whatever color the fringe left tells him to - wanted to show he was a tough guy by throwing his weight around with ABC.

Mary Katherine Ham at Townhall has a thorough righty round up of reactions and ads this thought on the Dem letter to Disney: " Take note-- this is the new Democratic Party. They pick Senate candidates and they tell the Majority Leader what to say."

Over at National Review OnlineJohn J. Miller notes that Variety is reporting: "Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether."

Michael Crowley and Josh Marshall shared the same brain 9/7:

• Crowley at TNR: "Given the White House's current strategy to divert attention away from Iraq and back to Osama bin Laden and 9/11, this new al Qaeda video is bizarrely in sync with Karl Rove's election- season game plan. It's especially weird when you recall that bin Laden's 11th-hour video in October 2004 may have cost John Kerry the election (something I know certain of his staffers believe). I'm not suggesting any actual coordination here, something that seems almost too obvious to say. But in a weird way, you can argue that bin Laden has become a kind of political ally for George W. Bush.
• Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "So al Qaida, or what's left of it, releases a five-plus year old tape of bin Laden with two of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the baddies just transfered to Gitmo. Right in time for the president's big kangaroo court role out. If you didn't know that bin Laden and Bush were the two polar opposites in the global battle between good and evil, you'd think the two were coordinating their media blitzes."

On the larger foreign policy front, lefty bloggers are undecided on whether or not Dems ought to offer policy specific of their own to voters this fall. Reed Hundt at TPM Cafe wants specifics: "We need at least ten different demands, each cast in form of bill or resolution, that Democrats say Congress should pass and will if they take charge. The topics should include negotiation with Iran, catching Osama, sealing the Lebanese border with Syria, replacing the head of Homeland Security, having the Attorney General explain in a public report why his prosecution record against terrorists is so abysmal, and so forth. Think of this as a Contract with America to have the war on terrorism run right."

Chris Bowers at MyDD looks at DemocracyCorps' latest memo, which advises Dem candidates to compose "15-page policy proposals to the voters in their districts on Iraq" and writes: "What, what, what? Is this a homework assignment that we need to have double-spaced and on the desks of voters in MLA format in two weeks? ... Democracy Corps is asking for Democratic candidates to present an incredible amount of wonky details on a variety of topics to the voters in their districts. No one is going to read those plans. More importantly, no one is going to believe that a freshman member of the House of Representatives could possibly implement them."

Andrew Sullivan is incensed over Pres. Bush's 9/6 claim: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it - and I will not authorize it." Sullivan argues Bush "is knowingly stating an untruth" since detainnee treatment has been "listed and documented and debated." Sullivan concludes:

If the president wants to argue that all this is necessary, that we need to breach the Geneva Conventions in order to protect the public, then he should say so. He should make the argument, and persuade Americans that torture should now be official policy, and seek explicit legislation amounting to a breach of the Geneva Conventions. That would be an honest position. He would gain the support of much of the Republican base, a large swathe of the conservative intelligentsia, and the contempt of the civilized world. We could then debate this honestly, including the torture techniques he has authorized and supports. Instead he lies.

Spencer Ackerman at TNR also debunks Bush claims this time on the intelligence value of Abu Zubaydah. Meanwhile at The Huffington Post Rep. Jane Harman admits she's "become angrier and angrier" over Bush's selective declassification of sensitive intelligence for political purposes and reprints her official statement including: "As a person who comes to work every day trying to understand the complexities of the threats against us, I resent being told that either I suspend the laws for heinous murderers like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or I am coddling terrorists."

Finally Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly sees Bush's detainee legislation as a reply of the union-busting trick put into the DHS legislation and hopes Dems stand firm this time saying: "In America you have the right to decent treatment and a fair trial, no matter who you are. We'll be working closely with Republicans to craft a bill that shows the world we really mean it when we say this. ... Why should Dems say this? Because it's what they actually believe. Right? Please tell me I'm right."

Jonathan Singer at MyDD passes along a WCBS-TV report that then NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) reopened Lower Manhattan few weeks following the attack even though the air was not safe. Singer writes: "If it is true that Rudy Giuliani knowingly sent not only countless aid workers but also thousands, nay millions of New Yorkers into a "toxic soup" without warning them of the clear danger to their health -- and these documents appear to indicate that it is true -- then his record on 9/11, which form the basis of his candidacy for the White House, will be seriously undermined."

David Frum admits at National Review Online he'd be happy with MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) or Giuliani in the WH, but argues a Giuliani nomination would ruin the GOP's chances: "The Republican Party is a pro-life party. That's just an empirical fact about the party. Giuliani is not merely not pro-life (I think he (but nobody else!) could get away with that, if he had chosen to address), but adamantly unwilling to reach any compromises with those who are. ... At this point, with not a single concession to the prolife camp, a Giuliani nomination would split the Republican party in very damaging ways. It would very possible trigger an independent candidacy by a prolife Perot. 2008 will be a tough enough year without that."

Gur Tsabar at The Huffington Post notes: "On the one hand, officials from major metropolitan areas are talking the talk, lambasting the Bush Administration's non-threat-based funding formulas that direct precious homeland security monies to far-flung locales in Wyoming (for example). But, on the other hand, it appears the same officials are not exactly walking the walk." Tsabar goes on to criticize Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) for fighting for DHS money for Buffalo, NY. he concludes: "Question is, when there's $125 million less to go around, and when presumably every dollar Buffalo receives New York City does not - and vice versa - who does this strategy benefit most?"

LiberIL View looks at Chicago Sun Timescriticism of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) for not having "expansive offices" and replies: "This is exactly what I want to see in a politician, no emphasis on the grand, no special attention given to how wealthy a candidate is. Simple and practical is better. Maybe Hillary's lush digs, and many, many, many big corporate donors are precisely why she is not a favorite or trusted by the base of the democratic party. Not to mention her stand on the war."

Larry Kudlow at National Review Online reports on www.tradesports.com latest Sen and House odds: "The Senate still looks secure with the Senate GOP 2006 contract at 78 bid (think 78 percent), but that is down about 5 percentage points in the past week or so. Meanwhile the House GOP 2006 contract has fallen four points to 38 bid. This suggests only a 38 percent chance of a Republican hold in the House."

TAPPED has audio up from their "Prospect breakfast" with cable exec Ned Lamont (D) although TAPPED admits "this one actually took place over lunch, but never mind."

Right bloggers want to know why the MSM isn't more out of Aud. Claire McCaskill's (D) comment reported by Pub Def that: "George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."

Wizbang writes: "Such despicable lies about the President aren't exactly new on the Democratic left, whose grasp upon reality has always been tenuous at best. It is odd for a statewide candidate in a "battleground state" to parrot them, though. Perhaps McCaskill wasn't aware a blogger was in the room?" Outside the Beltway laments GOP weakness with African-Americans: "More than forty years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965-and more than half a century after Brown v. Board of Education-there are some very deep wounds that have not healed. The GOP needs to do more. But it's very hard to make much progress when black leaders, self-appointed and otherwise, continue to hurl such outrageous charges for cyncial purposes."

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas watches Sen. Rick Santorum (R) new ad featuring Santorum's children and comments: "I guess when all else fails, getting his kids to defend him is all Santorum has left."

Further down dumbledoresarmy asks: "Does anyone else find the boy hugging the dog a little bit odd considering Rick's Man-on-Dog comments a couple years back? I know I'm a bit weirded out by it."

The Washington Note reports from UN Amb John Bolton confirmation hearings: "Senator Lincoln Chafee impressed just about everyone during the recent testimony of John Bolton before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He pushed Bolton for hard answers to important questions, and did not yield when Bolton tried to duck and swerve Chafee's queries. ... But the vote was delayed -- and it is now certain to be delayed beyond the September 12th primaries in Rhode Island. After Senator Chafee wins, which TWN hopes he does, the Senator's hand is even freer to vote his views and conscience on Bolton.

New Media Coordinator for the George Allen Senate campaign Jon Henke at QandO looks at Raising Kaine plans to hold a "Monkey Fest" in response to a GOP Ethnic Rally in Alexandria 9/9 and copies a letter from the rally's minority organizers to the web campaign:

In addition, Lowell Feld of your campaign suggests on Raising Kaine that those in attendance at the event Saturday will be White, Caucasian, Anglo, Saxon, Celtic, French, English, German, Irish, Scots-Irish. We resent this statement and its implication that only Caucasians would attend a Republican rally. While all these groups will be present and welcome Saturday, our rally will also include Afghan Americans, African Americans, Bolivian Americans, Chinese Americans, Colombian Americans, Cuban Americans, Filipino Americans, Indian Americans, Iranian Americans, Korean Americans, Pakistani Americans, Peruvian Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Salvadoran Americans, Taiwanese Americans, Vietnamese Americans and more.

Captain's Quarters comments on the monkey lovein': "This sounds like a cute joke gone very bad. Small wonder that the first comment on the Raising Kaine site is from Josh Chernilla, Webb's grassroots coordinator. His message? "Please get in touch with me. I need to talk with you." I'll bet he does."

Instapundit links to Sen. maj leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) announcement of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006's passage and writes: "Onward and upward. Or, in the case of pork spending, hopefully downward."

M.J. Rosenberg at TPM Cafe has a lengthy post on Rep. Chris Van Hollen's (D-MD) move rightward on the Middle East due to influence from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

During the Lebanon war, Van Hollen urged the Bush administration to support an immediate cease-fire, a position at variance with the Israeli government and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. ... Van Hollen was called in for a little chat with officials from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Van Hollen's first Mideast-related action upon returning to Washington was to join two dozen other representatives in sending a letter to Kofi Annan urging that peacekeepers sent to monitor the Israel-Lebanon border not be from states that do not recognize Israel. The letter itself is not particularly objectionable. It is simply unnecessary and represents nothing more than an election year effort to get on the "right" side of a particular issue.

What's the moral? Here is the case of Chris Van Hollen, a bright, progressive effective Member of Congress who has, according to the media, been brow-beaten into, most likely, avoiding the Mideast issue like the plague or simply becoming an AIPAC dittohead.I am a constituent of Van Hollen's and it troubles me that he is ignoring the views of the majority of his constituents (pro-Israel and pro-peace) to win the favor of a tiny minority and a powerful lobby.

Finally, Michael Wilbon has a place to go vent the next time Tony Kornheiser refuses to shut up about Secretariat.