Powered by TypePad

« 'Hubris' - Interesting Odds And Ends | Main | Ned Lamont Discovers Our Superficial Press Corps »

September 09, 2006


Thomas Morrissey

Low and behold, the brave defenders of our Rights, who boldly oppose terrorist phone and banking suveilance,engage in a blatant act of Government censorship.

And Bill Clinton wants people to "just tell the truth".

Pack of two faced weasels.


Podhoretz and others on the right are critical of the drama. I think Rovian jujitsu is at play. If the President had demanded that ABC revise or pull it, can you imagine the outcry! So --thru his mind bending tricks-- he got the Dems to do it.(The drama gets canned and the oppo fingered for doing that. and it's a great
payback to ABC for its cheap trick in bringing Munchausen et ux to the White House Correspondents dinner!


Well it's a great topic for the mid-term elections.

Thomas Morrissey


I think Rovian jujitsu is at play.

Throw in some neo-cons and you've got yourself a Matthewsian conspiracy.

Another White House attempt to smear Administartion critics.


Only Soylent can do this justice.
(Do you suppose Rove used the Shrum voice when he told the Clintonistas to do this or did he use the patented Comey-Fitz mind meld?)


The talking point is since they didn't explicitly say "we are going to take your license" it's merely a friendly bit of advice.

Reality-based indeed.

Lew Clark

And every time Rove does this, I'm reminded of the scene from Star Wars where Obi Wan explains to Luke, that you can use the Force to control, but only the weak-minded.


I heard Rove doesn't even care if he wins or loses at this point.

Now its just for fun!


Can you think of a better way to remind voters about Berger's docs in socks episode? Or Monica? Or any of their other hijinks?

What genius!

And that giant suck out your opponents' brains machine--if only I had my hands on it for just a few minutes!

JM Hanes

"SURVEYING the smoking ruin that is ABC’s reputation after the "The Path to 9/11" debacle..."

Well 'scuse me, but I think it's a little early for a retrospective! I'd say the jury's definitely still out on ABC till the film runs -- or doesn't. Not so with the heavyhanded tactics of Dem leadership, where I think Ruttan's got it right.


I love Steyn and Rutten's quote:
"As conservative columnist Mark Steyn put it on one talk show: ABC "supposedly spent years working on it to get it absolutely right, to get the absolute truth, and then they're frantically staying up late the night before it broadcasts snipping out 10 minutes here and there, because Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger and various other Clinton apparatchiks object to this or that line here and there. I mean, that makes them look pathetic, it makes ABC, I think, look ridiculous, in fact, because there's hundreds of these tapes out there. People are going to know exactly what lines were cut and what weren't cut."

JM Hanes

"People are going to know exactly what lines were cut and what weren't cut.

Which will be all the more telling, won't it?


Sandy Berger,these socks?

Christopher Fotos

Howard Kurtz was one of those who left out the Dems' threat to ABC's license in his story on Friday. The last time I blogged about Kurtz, it was about his misreporting that intelligence about Iraq seeking Niger's uranium was an unsupported claim (still uncorrected) so he's kind of on a roll.


I read that article and agree selective reporting was at work. The ploy backfired on dems who now appear to have egg on their faces. ABC will run the mini-series and bootleg copies will appear of the original. This is lose/lose for dems but they are used to being in that position. Especially on the second Tuesday in November.


This post has ..

Since ABC's public airwave license is granted to them free of charge in exchange for them to act as 'public trustees,' ABC's first amendment rights do not prevail over the interest of the public.

Specifically, in Red Lion v. FCCI (1969) 365 US 367, the Supreme Court noted that the first amendment rights of those granted licenses to public airwaves is no greater than those denied a license. As the Supreme Court stated, "the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

A simple question .. does this regulation/control also apply to ABC (NBC, CBS, PBS) reporters ?

I seem to remember a huge brouhaha in the not to distant past over the appointment of Kenneth Tomlinson to the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because it was claimed that he would espouse Bush's right leaning views. Now the direct intervention by members of the Senate is somehow overlooked and worse, applauded.

Last night, I saw a piece on MSNBC that had Olbermann hosting a dude from Think Progress talking about the connections of an Evangelical Christian group to the TV movie "Path to 9/11." The piece just foamed with "guilt by association" in the film industry and Olbermann just lapped it up.

If you had replaced all the references to "Evangelical Christians" with "Communists", a 5th grader could have easily recognized it as prue McCarthyism.

I've seen claims since the 60's that the Democratic Party is the real protector or civil liberties and now, this whole "Path to 9/11" debacle, has shown that absolute support for civil liberties by Democrats is purely an illusion. Given the right motivation, they will dump them in a minute.

Tom Maguire

I've seen claims since the 60's that the Democratic Party is the real protector or civil liberties...

Whoa, don't say that near a gun rights enthusiast.

Or a "taxes equal slavery" person.

Actually, don't say it.

(Well, you're free to say whatever you want, obviously...)


I did say "claims"

The biggest loss for Democrats in this whole debacle is any credibility as "civil liberties" protectors, even for those liberties they had previously claimed to protect, like the 1st.

As to the accuracy claims, I also seem to remember PBS doing one or more pieces on the "October surprise" that Reagan was supposedly doing with the Iranians. Eventually, the Congress decided there was nothing there, but that didn't stop PBS from showing it (or them).
In five years plus since these pre-9/11 activities happen, there as been virtually nothing on TV (i.e. PBS or otherwise) that covered any on these topics. So of course, the first telling will be a bit sloppy.

Damn .. you begin to wonder if there really is any truth at all. Just try to imagine Sandy Berger, the guy who stuffed documents into his sox and then destroyed them, as being a source of any truth.

I say .. tell the story as best we have it, then figure out what was hyperbole and fix the record.


Here's an idea ..

maybe the next 9/11-like comission should make the movie.

Tom Maguire

I did say "claims"...

Ooops! I did get new glasses, but where are they?


I know I'm late to the party [as usual], so forgive me if this has already been suggested.

Why doesn't ABC just run some repeats of it usual Sunday / Monday night fare with big black and white screens announcing the threat to their license inserted where the commercials would normally be.

Something simple and tasteful along the lines of "These people didn't want you to see 'The path to 9/11' and threatened to take away our broadcast license" followed by the names of all the signatories along with their party affiliation.

The rest of us can sit at home and wait for the sound of exploding moonbat heads.

"Hmmm, smells like popcorn." [/Homer mode]


Over at America blog, they have a picture of Atta in mouse ears...yep, Atta in mouse ears.

Really just a measure of how far up their own asses the left have crawled up and just don't get what they are actualy doing vs. what they think they are doing.


All this hullabaloo has guaranteed ABC a blockbuster audience so why would they pull the film now.? Clintonistas need a comeuppance . Make some money off it. They did NOTHING substantial and now everyone will know it. That's what happens when you have misplaced priorities. It's bound to catch up to you at some point in time. Bravo ABC-Hang tough.


FDL says:

Arianna Huffington’s book On Becoming Fearless arrives at an interesting time. Even as people are beginning to question the maelstrom of fear-mongering that has dominated the national agenda since 9/11, so to have the authentic voices of women been making their way into the political discourse (and by authentic I mean to differentiate them from those of the putative X-chromosome bearing Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkins, whose shrill reinforcement of male-dominated narratives represent little more than a quartet of dirty little paws grubbing for their next wingnut welfare check). Arianna’s lifetime journey of self-discovery and personal evolution, as well as her acute senses of expression and observation, give her a unique vantage point from which to comment on the subject of overcoming one’s personal fears as a woman heavily engaged in the realm of politics and social change.

I will take this opportunity to relish in the irony that Arrianna was the mother of online petitions, as her biggest effort was ensuring the impeachment of Clinton and note the "fear mongering" occurs after 27 posts attempting to get ABC to airbrush censor Clinton's lack of "fear mongering"...paper bags and logic.


Arianna is so authentic she was married for years to a gay man and didn't catch on?

JM Hanes

FDL: Postmodern feminism in Deconstructivist decline.


Yeah, the show was a crime, but it's the cover-up that get's ya.


Maguire, call your office:


The comments to this entry are closed.