September 07, 2006

9/7: Mickey Under Fire

Lefty push-back against ABC's upcoming "The Path to 9/11" docudrama only intensified 9/6. Ex-Pres. Bill Clinton, ex-Sec/State Madeline Albright, ex-NSA Sandy Berger, DNC Exec. Dir. Tom McMahon, and 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste all, to varying degrees, lent their efforts to the blogger campaign to get ABC to change and/or offer rebuttal time for the docudrama. Righty blogs have tersely taken note of their brethren's effort, but so far have not matched their intensity. Will this controversy be the first Rathergate style victory for lefty blogs?

All righty eyes were fixed on Pres. Bush for his 9/6 address. Michelle Malkin and Wizbang both liveblogged the speech. Righty reviews were mostly glowing, especially at National Review Online's The Corner:

• Mario Loyola: "The President just pulled one of the best maneuvers of his entire presidency. By transferring most major Al Qaeda terrorists to Guantanamo, and simultaneously sending Congress a bill to rescue the Military Commissions from the Supreme Court's ruling Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the President spectacularly ambushed the Democrats on terrain they fondly thought their own. Now Democrats who oppose (and who have vociferously opposed) the Military Commissions will in effect be opposing the prosecution of the terrorists who planned and launched the attacks of September 11 for war crimes."
• John Derbyshire:"GWB at his best. Plain facts, narrative, & proposals for Congress to act on. No grand metaphysical assertions-no gassy stuff about God planting a desire for liberty in every heart etc. etc. Just the facts, in interesting detail."
• Kate O'Beirne: "I think the White House has been reluctant to tout the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack here since 9/11 owing to the 'knock on wood' imperative. In today's excellent speech, the President finally explained in detail that it is no accident."
• Jonah Goldberg: "What I liked the most about it was that the White House finally started offering details, specifics and examples. So much of Bush's rhetoric has been high-flying and abstract."
• not at The Corner, Right Wing News: "All in all, it was a good speech on an important topic and Bush was wise to bring it up, not just because it's good policy, but because it's good politics. If the Democrats want to cry tears for how tough the terrorists will have it when they go on trial, let them, but it'll just emphasize what a bunch of weaklings they are right before the elections."

Some on the right were concerned that the Pres. had caved to liberal pressure on detainee treatment. Riehl World View writes: "I read recently that Rove wasn't the force he had once been. That seems more and more clear as Republicans continue to annoy their base right before an election. I'm scratching my head and wondering if the fight hasn't simply worn Bush 43 down, or was the administration as confused about what it was doing, as the Left would allege, from the start?" Michelle Malkin was also underwhelmed: "Lots of readers and fellow bloggers are asking: That's it?!"

Tom Bevan at RCP Blog noted that some "old media," as well as Drudge, were misplaying the speech as Bush caving on "Geneva Rights." Bevan argues that they're wrong and forwards a WH email titled "Setting the Record Straight" and including this talking point: "Neither The President's Proposed Legislation Nor The Detainees' Transfer To Guantanamo Gives The Detainees POW Status."

Hugh Hewitt also loved the speech and looked forward to the "Lamont wing of the Democratic Party" opposing the admin's detainee legislation. Power Line's Paul Mirengoff saw problems coming from some GOPers as well: "The Republican Party has a terrorist rights wing too -- the McCain, Graham, Warner faction. To be sure, it's much smaller than its Democratic counterpart. But considering McCain's stature, the reverential treatment he and his cohorts receive from the MSM, and the slim nature of the Republican Senate majority, this group is the more important of the two." Captain's Quarters also saw a tough cong. fight, but saw electoral opportunity:

Congress has a tough task facing them, and the more they forget that these terrorists should not be placed on the same plane as the civilians they target for their war, the more political risk they will face. No one wants to go into an election having argued for Miranda rights for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ... If Congress doesn't deliver something soon, those who obstructed the process will pay dearly at the ballot box this November.

Back at The CornerKathryn Jean Lopez passes along snarky GOP Sen staff email: "The president gave a speech? Was it important? Sorry. I missed it. I've been forced to focus on the Democrats nonbinding Rumsfeld "temper tantrum."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reminds readers of the true purpose behind Bush's address:

President Bush wants to gin up a hail mary pre-election political fight over the constitution (no pun intended) of military tribunals for accused terrorists. This election-timed stunt is intended to put fourteen faces on the president's fight over the rules for his kangaroo courts. So now, you're either with Bush or you're with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. ... Remember: It's all about the politics.

TalkLeft explains the timing of Pres. Bush speech: "Why the sudden reveal of the gang of fourteen? Hauling the evildoers to Guantanamo -- sort of a terrorist perp walk, without the cameras -- shows us that all the human rights violations, all the law-breaking, was worth it." And Spencer Ackerman at TNR reports the CIA is happy to be out of this spotlight: "Last thing. I'll have more on this in a forthcoming piece, but the CIA wants very, very badly to get out of the detention business. It's afraid that whatever administration follows Bush will prosecute operatives and officials for complying with illegal Bush administration policy. It may be that Bush and his aides see an opportunity to neutralize a whole bunch of threats at once. That would be kind of admirable if it weren't, you know, evil."

The lefty 'sphere continued its campaign against ABC's docudrama "The Path to 9/11" set to air 9/10-11. Despite a lack of access to early release DVDs of the show, the following inaccuracies have been documented:

• Ex-Sec/State Madeline Albrightletter : "One scene apparently portrays me as refusing to support a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis; it further asserts that I notified the Pakistanis of the strike over the objections of our military. Neither of these assertions is true.
• Ex-NSA Sandy Bergerletter : I am especially troubled by a scene described to me in which CIA operatives in Afghanistan have al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in their sights and seek authorization to attack, This is followed by a scene in which an actor portraying "Sandy Berger" refuse on behalf of the President to authorize a strike despite urgent pleadings of CIA officials. ... No such episode ever occurred.
• AMERICAblog: "[Howard Kurtz] also reveals that the tv show's major premise, that Monica Lewinsky somehow played a role in thwarting US efforts to catch bin Laden, is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report."
• DNC Exec. Dir. Tom McMahonemail : "Another scene revives the old right-wing myth that press reporting made it impossible to track Osama bin Laden, accusing the Washington Post of blowing the secret that American intelligence tracked his satellite phone calls. In reality, responsibility for that blunder -- contrary to "The Path to 9/11" -- rests with none other than the arch-conservative Washington Times."

Crooks and Liars has video of 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-VenisteThe Countdown ripping "ABC over their many false representation of the 9/11 commission report."

Some lefties noticed ex-Pres. Clinton's belated entry into the fracas. Greg Sargent at TPM Cafe had to track down a response out of Clinton spokesman Jay Carson who finally released a statement: "The record shows that President Clinton was committed to and focused on stopping terrorism every day," Carson emailed us, "and that his administration had many significant successes on this front, and he expects that any serious treatment of history would reflect that." Sargent adds: "Many will no doubt find Clinton's statement less than satisfactory. It's certainly less forceful than seems warranted.

Charles P. Pierce at TAPPED had similar thoughts: "I do have one question, though: Where the hell's Bill Clinton? ... If this is about his wife's presidential campaign -- "Shh, honey, don't make the networks angry." -- then there really isn't anything he can't, or won't, triangulate. This reminds me of all those times he patted progressives on the head while he ran toward the rapidly sliding middle, only to find that, when the Monica hit the fan, those progressives were the only friends he had left."

Meanwhile, Hullabaloo was building the lefty case against ABC owner Disney which includes: 1) cancelling a reality show featuring a gay couple; 2) refusing to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11; and 3) signing a deal with Mel Gibson after The Passion made it clear ho anti-semitic he was. Hullabaloo concludes: "The reason this matters so much, and why Democrats are so apoplectic at the way ABC has handled this material, is that popular culture has a way of inculcating certain concepts into people's minds, especially young minds, far more effectively than talking head programs or earnest debates among political bloggers and columnists. This is the kind of thing that could taint the debate for generations if it takes hold."

Think Progress adds to the liberal case against Disney by linking to a conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt posting of an email from an "ABC insider" that promised Hewitt: "The message of the Clinton Admin failures remains fully intact."

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall updates his readers on ABC's reaction to blogger complaints. ABC will run this disclaimer "throughout" the broadcast:

The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary. For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.

TPM also compiles a list of Sinclair Broadcasting and Hearst owned ABC affiliates and announces that "at least some program managers at local ABC affiliates around the country are planning to run rebuttal segments and/or panel with a mix of terrorism experts to add 'balance' or least deflect some criticism." But TPM is not hopeful about the response from stations in the larger markets: "Anyway, after that, a few readers helpfully pointed out that the ABC stations in the biggest markets are pretty much all O and O's. That is, Disney/ABC owns the stations themselves. So they're not really affiliates and they have no independent choice whether to air the movie. Apparently, at least New York, LA, Chicago, San Francisco, Philly and Houston are all covered by Disney."

Finally, All Spin Zone reports that bloggers have broken through with their efforts to pressure Scholastic Books to disassociate with the docudrama: "Two days ago, I wrote about Scholastic Books catapulting the "Path to 9/11" propaganda. More than 400 comments were made at a crossposting that I did on Daily Kos. ... Scholastic was flooded with calls and emails of protest and righteous indignation. Tonight, the material is no longer on Scholastic's website. Poof. Disappeared. There are apparently no more "Path to 9/11" resources or information on Scholastic's website. Wow. If this is truly the case, fantastic. We might have won one round. Either way, the fight isn't over."

MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) missed no opportunity to soak up righty-love over his decision to order state agencies not not to provide any support for ex-Iranian Pres. Mohammed Khatami 9/10 visit to Harvard, including sitting down with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt. An excerpt:

HH: Last question, Governor. ... You've been out on the road a lot for Republican candidates across the United States. Does this issue matter, not just to Republicans, but to independent Democrats as well, preparedness against the Islamic threat, five years after 9/11?

MR: I think there's a great deal of concern about Iraq as one front in the war, but I don't think people recognize that it is just one front, that they look at Iraq and say gee, it hasn't gone as well as we would have liked to have seen it go, so let's just come home and not worry about. But in fact, it's only one front. We have a long battle that's going to go forward. I think Americans are concerned about the safety of our homeland, and rightfully so. We made progress, we have further to go. It's an important issue, but it's not something where Democrat Murtha's perspective that we should just cut and run is selling with the American people. We recognize how severe the threat is, and we as a people are going to have to confront it.

Bloggers are noticing that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the GOP base are on opposite sides of the two biggest issues before the Sen this fall.

Josh Marshall at TPM on detainee prosecution: "We know the president's final strategy to keep the subpoenas at bay in 2007 and 2008. Put the worst al Qaida bad guys at Gitmo and force a rushed debate over legislation over how they will be tried. An up or down vote, either the president's kangaroo courts or nothing. ... So it comes down to McCain. Not your ordinary Republican, I grant you. But really, really wants to be the next Republican President. My gut tells me he flakes and goes along with Bush. He's basically already sold himself to the party's establishment for the GOP nod in 2008."

Captain's Quarters on reports that GOPers will push through border security measures without guest worker or amnesty provisions:

The entire Democratic caucus in the Senate will oppose this effort, and they will not be alone. John McCain will provide the key. He championed the linkage between the two in the Senate, and he may well stick with that tactic. However, if he continues to block border security, he will make his relationship with the conservatives in the GOP even worse than they are now, and he knows it. If McCain pursues a legislative agenda at odds with conservatives on national security, they will flock to Rudy Giuliani's side in 2008 if a conservative candidate does not effectively compete for the nomination. They know that even with his more liberal views on social issues, Giuliani would not leave the borders unsecured for political advantage.

TAPPED's Ben Alder upset fellow lefties with his resource allocation question: "Wouldn't the fundraising energy the bloggers lavished on Ned Lamont been better spent funding challengers seeking to defeat actual Republicans? Come November 8th, would they rather see Joe Lieberman looking hangdog or George Allen staring shellshocked?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls this "the stupidest question ever" and argues that fundraising is not a zero-sum game. Kos says any such arguments should not be pointed at bloggers, but at the donors to non-competitive races like Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Kos concludes: "Personally, I can't think of a better investment than the money we contributed to Lamont. ... That investment in Lamont bought us hope of a people-powered future, one in which change can happen if we all work hard enough to make it happen. And I wouldn't trade that for the world."

Ezra Klein at TAPPED agrees that political donations are not a zero sum game but argues that blogger attention is: "the blogosphere's capability to focus attention and emphasis on a certain campaign or issue is limited, and that they'd made a strategic mistake in devoting so much of it to Lamont. I do recall far more "Nedrenaline" posts than I do Webb appeals, so it seems to me that Adler's got a point there."

In other CT news, Emboldened reports on Lieberman's Blogroll: "Lieberman's blogroll is made up entirely of blogs outside the state of Connecticut (if any are Connecticut based, they don't advertise it). The top three have a grand total of ten posts between them and were created in the last three weeks. One is forced to wonder if the delay in launching Joe2006 v2.0 was to allow their "ringers" a chance to get up to steam (snicker)."

Adam C at RedState links to video of LG Michael Steele's new television ad "Building Bridges" featuring Def Jam Records Founder Russell Simmons. Adam writes: "This ad continues the theme of Mr. Steele as a Senator for all of Maryland, not just the partisan Democrats. Maryland is not a Republican-friendly territory and Mr. Steele will have to win a chunk of cross-over votes in addition to winning the independent vote to be successful."

Macandanna at Raising Kaine warns Sen. George Allen (R-VA) to be on the look out for macaca-themed costumed ex-Navy sec. James Webb (D-VA) supporters at the Fairfax County GOP's Ethnic Rally 9/9.: "We, Mac (the Monkey) and Anna (Banana) will be there, but much more exciting will be the opportunity to hang out with Patch Adams (clown doctor activist) who will be "Gorilla"! We will have 9 monkey face masks to share - first come, first serve and plenty of our favorite yellow snacks, balloons, and stickers. We encourage you to bring your own monkey outfits, masks, and signs."

Matthew Yglesias does not like the Dem strategy of focussing on Def. Sec. Donald Rumsfeld since it allows the GOP an opportunity to divorce itself from the worst portions of the administration's foreign policy. Yglesias writes:

This Rumsfeld-obsession plays a genuinely pernicious role in our national discourse. The basic reality of the matter is that between September 2001 and Spring 2003 the bulk of the American political and media establishments endorsed the key elements of the Bush foreign policy. Over the subsequent 18 months or so, it became obvious to the bulk of this establishment that the Bush foreign policy was a moral and practical disaster. Rather than conclude that they were operating from mistaken premises and that they should come up with some new, authentically different ideas, the predominant impulse has simply been to say "we could have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for that meddling Rumsfeld!" Well, no. Rumsfeld's ideas were bad ones. But the bad ideas -- the policies, Bush's policies, The Washington Post's policies, Andrew Sullivan's policies, etc. -- are the issue here, not Rumsfeld personally.

As part of their effort to retain the House, the RNC has started a humorous publication called "America Weakly" that " is a satirical publication containing fictional news stories of a fictitious future. Unless otherwise specified, the content of this publication should not be viewed as a depiction of actual events." The print/online paper has stories and features from a near future where Dems control the House. One headline reads: "Promise Kept! Tax Cut Repeal Passes House." The "paper" also has a horoscope section including:

• Libra: Your favorite television show will be routinely interrupted this month by updates on the Democrats' impeachment hearings of President Bush.
• Aquarius: Feeling Ill? No worries, the government bureaucrats will make all of your difficult medical decisions for you!
• Cancer: Luck is in the air: you will find yourself slightly richer. On the down side, it will be because you were part of a major class-action that put your employer out of business. Better make that $38.42 last!

Posted by Conn Carroll at September 7, 2006 12:29 PM