Sunday, September 10, 2006
The Left is virtually begging people to see "Path to 9/11"
Whatever the original audience for the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11", the left has massively expanded it by deciding that among all the things it should campaign against, a "docudrama" from ABC is worthy of a massive grassroots political and legal campaign. How extensive is this campaign? See this post at AMERICABlog, one of the leading lefty blogs:
I've talked with some of the other organizers of the anti-Disney/ABC campaign, and we've decided, quite rightly, that if Disney/ABC runs this defamatory show tomorrow night, we are launching an all-out war against both companies. I'd like to start the discussion going, with your input, as to what the next steps should be, possible actions, etc.
Some thoughts:
1. Legal component.
Clearly Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright and American Airlines have good cause to sue Disney/ABC, the BBC, Australian and New Zealand television, and any local affiliate that broadcasts the show. How can we further help their lawsuit? I think a first step is paying close attention in each country to how the show is being marketed. Get us copies of ads, promotions, etc. that show local broadcasters and others promoting the show as true and non-fiction. How else can we help their suit?
John Aravosis goes on to describe a comprehensive legal, legislative, regulatory and commercial strategy against Disney, ABC, Apple (if it makes the show available on iTunes), the BBC (a well-known den of right-wing nuttery), YouTube and virtually anybody else who might promote or facilitate its dissemination. Read the whole thing, and then consider that the guy averages 100,000 readers a day.
This strikes me as an extremely unwise strategy on a number of levels. First, a great many people are going to watch this show only because of the controversy coming from the left. I can say with absolute certainty that I will watch it only because John Aravosis and his ilk think that I should not be allowed to see it and judge for myself. I am sure that there are millions more just like me, and several times our number who simply want to see what all the fuss is about.
Second, as Ann Althouse points out, the legal part of the strategy is not even slightly in the interest of bloggers, especially the high-voltage ad hominum attack variety.
Oh, yeah, bloggers really ought to want to encourage lawsuits by public figures who think something inaccurate has been said about them. This is the worst case of myopia I've seen in my years of blogging. You guys are complete idiots.
Third, Aravosis is advocating terrible policy in the abstract. Setting aside all the obvious legal problems to consider what the policy ought to be, do we really think that former presidents and their cabinet officers should have a cause of action for dramatizations or even fictionalizations about their time in office? If Aravosis were to win his point and Republicans were to take advantage of it, Michael Moore could never raise the money for another film and would probably go bankrupt just defending himself for the movies he has already made.
Fourth, the obvious joy that Democrats took in exploiting Fahrenheit 911, which contained at least as many deceptions and deceits as "The Path to 911," fatally undermines the credibility of their outrage. Any leading Democrat or blogger who denounced Fahrenheit 911 has a leg to stand on. Anybody who rejoiced in the "truthiness" of Moore's propaganda, however, should be pressed to distinguish their outrage at ABC. (And if the objection rests on the use of a broadcast medium in this case versus movie theaters and cable and satellite television in the other case, may I respectfully suggest that in today's world that distinction is meaningless. The "spectrum scarcity" rationale that justified content-based regulation of broadcast television disappeared more than twenty years ago. There is no principle left to sustain it, only the desire of politicians to retain leverage over the television networks.)
Finally, this is all bad politics. The bizarre efforts of Richard Clarke notwithstanding, it is obvious that every administration from Carter's through Bush 43 failed to appreciate the purposeful lethality of unconstrained Islamic radicalism. Clinton's was no different. Notwithstanding lots of plans, neither he or nor his national security apparatus actually thought that it was important to destroy al Qaeda. Clarke attributes this to the intense political pressure on the Clinton administration, which constrained his ability to act against al Qaeda without being accused of having "wagged the dog." He also argued that Clinton did not go after al Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan because of Iraq:
On these three occasions and during the presentations of the PolMil Plan, I tried to make the case to the Principals that we should strike at known al Qaeda camps whether or not bin Laden was in them. "I know that you don't want to blow up al Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan trying to get bin Laden only to have the bastard sow up the next day at a press conference saying how feckless we are. So don't say we were trying to get bin Laden; say we were trying to destroy the camps. If we get him, so much the better."
The response I received from all the other members of the Principals usually went along the lines of: "So we spend millions of dollars' worth of cruise missles and bombs blowing up a buck fifty's worth of jungle gyms and mud huts again?" Sometimes I heard, "Look, we are bombing Iraq every week. We may have to bomb Serbia. European, Russian, Islamic press are already calling us the Mad Bomber. You want to bomb a third country?"....
It was ironic that people had once worried whether Bill Clinton would use force and now there was criticism that he was using it too much. In the Islamic world, there was criticism that Clinton was bombing Iraq. After the start of hostilities with Belgrade, there were days when U.S. forces bombed both Serbia and Iraq. General Shelton and General Zinni [who would later emerge as leading critics of OIF - ed.] looked on the idea of regular strikes against Afghanistan as another burden on an already stretched military.... (Against All Enemies, p. 201 - 202, bold emphasis added)
Notwithstanding Clarke's heroic efforts to defend Clinton's intentions, at the end of the day he is forced to concede that Clinton actually did very little to confront al Qaeda. Whether this was the result of intense political pressure -- which seemed to constrain Clinton much more than George W. Bush -- or obstructionism from the military (which seemed to find far more resources available to support George W. Bush than Bill Clinton) is quite immaterial. At the end of the day, Clinton chose to do essentially nothing about al Qaeda, and instead focused on Iraq.
None of this is new. Two years ago I wrote about this very passage in Clarke's book:
[T]he Clinton administration as late as 1999 clearly felt that containment of Saddam was more important than pursuit of al Qaeda. While this revealed priority for bombing Iraq rather than al Qaeda ante-dated September 11, by 1999 "bin Laden's fighters had stitched to their battle flag [five] major victories: Aden, Yemen (1992); Mogadishu, Somalia (1993); Rihadh, Saudi Arabia (1995); Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (1996); [and] Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (1998)..." (Imperial Hubris, Anonymous, pp. 22-23) Al Qaeda was coming after us every which way, and yet the Clinton Administration continued to make containment of Iraq such a priority that Richard Clarke portrays it as having precluded action against al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan. I point this out not to snark up a storm at either Clinton or Clarke, but to discredit the current argument of the Kerry campaign that the invasion of Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong time." The "neocons" of the Bush Administration, if they are indeed as influential and monolithic as proposed, are hardly more preoccupied with Iraq than the leading lights of the Clinton administration circa 1999. They just had the political wherewithal to exorcize their preoccupation.
That last bit might have been an overstatement -- I now think that there were people in the Bush administration who were more intensely focused on Iraq than their counterparts during the Clinton years, but that still does not change the fact that Clinton chose not to go after al Qaeda with hammer and tongs. Whether the choice was as blatant and specific as ABC seems to suggest is obviously a point for debate, but that Clinton made the choice not to go after al Qaeda is not.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds, who has more links on this subject.
21 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Sep 10, 04:37:00 PM:
Another practical argument against their post-viewing boycott approach is that without such a boycott, the film would have been shown and then vanished, just a blip on the short attention span of America. But with an all out boycott on the network and even sponsors, continuing attention will be called to the Clintonista attempt to censor their 9-11 fingerprints with brute force.
It's nice to know practitioners of this sort of shortsighted partisan tactic are now in effective control of the Democrat Party...
By 
Bob Hawkins, at
Sun Sep 10, 04:47:00 PM:
And if the "all-out war" against Disney/ABC is effective, it will drive them into the arms of the GOP. Any other media company would be derelict if it didn't see to its defenses.
I want to see it. Lefties, I consider this a promise.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 04:55:00 PM:
A comment from "Mad as Hell" at AMERICAblog that makes me giggle:
Here we are right down to the wire, and it appears that this piece of sh*t will go on. I feel like crying! It's such a slap in the face....
This entire fiasco has Karl Rove all over it. Ever since the 2000 presidential campaign when Karl Rove smeared John McCain, it's just gotten completely out of control. The only way Rove and the entire RNC know how to operate, is to smear, smear, smear. I'm so sick of it I could scream. ... It makes such perfect sense, I'd need some pretty compelling proof to not believe Rove and the RNC aren't behind this.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 05:27:00 PM:
Sandy Berger stole some files (and caught with) recently....
Are those files have somthing to do with this show?
Or just trying to cover his ass?
JSY
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 05:28:00 PM:
"...we are launching an all-out war..."
Good to know they'll fight for something.
By Unknown, at
Sun Sep 10, 06:05:00 PM:
re: it's all a rovian plot
(I wonder if rovian will enter the dictionary as fast as "google" did? :-)
It is amazing how much mirror-imaging goes on with the left and they can't see it - and how often it kills them, these assumptions that the President, the people he would be comfortable having around him, and that conservatives in general would have the same priorities, behaviors and value system that they do. Intellectually I'm sure the left knows better (that the right has little respect for government and would just as soon find a way to automate it out of existence - so there's little time or patience for these types of games (save by the truly corrupt) - the immediate work on their plate is hard enough) but the left can't seem to moderate their reactions.
To believe all this, a person must think this President's professed faith is a sham, and that he and these people around him are masters of manipulation and deceit. Pretty sad, especially if this is a mirror of the life these people are experiencing.
As I've said before, a lie hurts the victim only a little if at all, eventually the listener/believer determines the truth and holds the liar responsible (by devaluing everything else they've said, irrespective of its truth). I don't know why politicians and others provide their opponents these hammers (by not sticking with the absolute truth as they know it, or just keeping quiet) - perhaps it's a wish-to-fail, Freudian in all its glory. Or perhaps there is a heaven/hell (and its justice is sometimes found in this life)
Usually people learn from these experiences. After a time it's no fun watching the loyal opposition make the same mistake, over and over.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 06:16:00 PM:
The best soiution is to advocate a comphrehensive boycott of ABC - stop watching the network forever. ABC is running this show in an (desperate?) attempt to gain market share by attracting viewers to a mini-series playing off the 911 anniversary. It would be fittingly ironic if airing this overtly deceptive program had the opposite effect, and permanently reduced ABC's market share - something that would be devasting to ABC.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 06:41:00 PM:
Well I think ABC & writers just need to use the "fake but accurate" defense.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 07:03:00 PM:
This entire fiasco has Karl Rove all over it.
Bwahhahaha...I love it when a plan comes together ;->
Of course Rove is also guilty of the conspiracy to implement "global warming" on Jupiter (which is happening).
Seriously, is there nothing this man and his minions can't do?
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 07:44:00 PM:
How's this for a conspiracy theory: This whole shebang is actually orchestrated by the Dems in an effort to blow whatever chance they might have of regaining control of Congress. Why? Because a Dem-controlled Congress would make Her Highness's presidential bid in '08 that much more difficult.
By M. Simon, at
Sun Sep 10, 07:55:00 PM:
Dems Admit Weakness On National Security
In a stunning attempt to call attention to Democrat weakness on national security Democrats are calling attention to an ABC docudrama of the 9/11 Comission Report. This must be the issue they fear above all others. The really interesting thing about this whole uproar is that the Democrats by emphasising this issue are in effect working for the Republicans. They had two choices, lay low and take a hit, or make a big noise and take a bigger hit.
--snip--
Wasn't Monicagate a Republican job? Wouldn't a wise Democrat Party blame the Republicans for wagging the dick while undermining national security by claiming Clinton was just wagging the dog? That is what I always thought anyway. It would be a good argument too. But now that Bush is in office it is the Dems who have run around screaming Bush is wagging the dog.
Instead of counter attacking they have let their fears about calling attention to their weakness on national defence rule their response. They have gone on the defensive, in effect admitting that they are weak on national security.
--snip--
Consider this a track back.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 08:13:00 PM:
The largest shareholder of Disney, which owns ABC, is Steve Jobs CEO of Apple Computer. He admires the Clintons so much he has had them sleep over at his home, contribute $229k to the Dems and $0 to the GOP, and he has Al Gore on Apple's Board of Directors. By the way the only government use of an Apple product I have seen is the President and his iPod. Good going Al and Steve!
Wouldn't you love to see the moon bats sue one of their own?...
By Jamie, at
Sun Sep 10, 09:50:00 PM:
More than that, 9/10 8:13:10 anonymous, I'd be interested to see Steve Jobs's face right about now. I don't care what the Clinton team thinks or does about the docudrama nearly as much as I care to see the rips in the facade...
I don't know, when push comes to shove, whether any of those threatening to sue would actually have the cojones to sue Disney, but even if they don't, what an enlightening episode this has been, eh? And not just to those of us on the (R)ight side - it's got to shed a little unwelcome light for some on the opposite side as well.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sun Sep 10, 10:43:00 PM:
When Fahrenheit 9/11, which was dropped by Disney, gets to come on network television, then we can talk about parity.
PT911 cloaks itself in the stylings of "Exactly What Happened" while urging an evangelistic dittohead to play fast and loose with the facts. To release it only to right-wing world lends one to imagine that there's some collusion b/w Disney and the right.
I don't know if the scandal will draw more viewers to the program or not. We'll have to wait and see. I sure hope not.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 10:48:00 PM:
You wrote: a great many people are going to watch this show only because of the controversy coming from the left.
Are you saying that the 900 preview DVDs that Disney sent out to right-wing media had no effect on you? Are you saying that the only factor in your decision is what left-wing blogs want you to do? (And that you will do the opposite?)
Ah, that makes it easy. Why don't you not go Cheney yourself, then.
By , at
Sun Sep 10, 11:02:00 PM:
No dipshit, what he said was he is curious to see what the leftwing is trying to keep anyone from seeing. As am I. Two days ago, I didnt care one way or the other about this program, and had no plans to watch. Thanks to all the noise made by the left, I just watched part one and will catch part two tomorrow.
By Papa Ray, at
Sun Sep 10, 11:10:00 PM:
Well, I won't be watching it, I've already seen it on the net. Whatever they cut, or edited will be mute as the orignal is already out there.
As usual, Dr Sanity has this all figured out, nailed down and tells us about:
THE INSANELY REPRESSIVE IDIOTS OF THE LEFT
Love it.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Sep 11, 07:23:00 AM:
Rob Roy,
Are you saying that the 900 preview DVDs that Disney sent out to right-wing media had no effect on you? Are you saying that the only factor in your decision is what left-wing blogs want you to do? (And that you will do the opposite?)
No. Of course, I read a couple of early reviews from righties who got the DVD, and had pretty much decided not to watch it. I was, frankly, turned off by the "dramatization" embedded in it -- I'm not keen on that sort of thing, left or right. But regular readers will tell you that I read all sorts of stuff from the left, and the more enraged the lefties got, the more curious I got. It is as simple as that. Even that really didn't do it, though. I only resolved to see PT911 when those Democratic senators sent Disney that absurd letter.
By Ymarsakar, at
Mon Sep 11, 07:22:00 PM:
Modifying your behavior according to what the enemy does is just basic good strategy. It's all part of Know Thy Enemy and various other parts and components.
Figuring out what is a fortification and what is a breach in the wall, is done not so much by just using your brain and eyes, so much as trying to figure out what the enemy is thinking. Is the breach a trick, is the wall a mock up like they did on D-Day? These questions can be answered by looking at the real and honest reactions, emotionally, from your opponents.
By Ymarsakar, at
Mon Sep 11, 09:23:00 PM:
Btw, CDR Salamander has a post up that links to RedState. Red State has clips of the miniseries in discussion, that shows particular interesting pieces.
Link
The scene in which Osama was almost snatched was.... interesting. I would have been surprised at that scene had it come from ABC, but Disney.... Disney was always more conservative than your average Hollywood power broker.
Honestly from the clip, it didn't blame Clinton. The first clip that is. It blamed Berger. Steve Jobs might have influenced Disney and ABC both to cast blame on Clinton's underlings, make Clinton look good and respectable but trash his shields.
The clip said that Clinton had authorized the snatch on review, but it was Berger who would not give the order, the clip making it show that Berger was afraid. Honestly, I wouldn't care who they blamed, so long as they blamed either Berger or Clinton.
By , at
Tue Apr 22, 01:01:00 PM:
Order Generic Viagra Sildenafil drug is used to treat impotence in men. Sildenafil
increases the bodys ability to achieve and maintain an erection during sexual stimulation.
Brand Kamagra drug and brand
Penegra are a top selling generic versions of Viagra , world renowned for its unbeatable potency and efficiency.
Generic Cialis TADALAFIL drug, dubbed "Le Weekend Drug" in Europe, is a new treatment for
Erectile Dysfunction (ED) from Lilly ICOS LLC. Clinical studies show that Brand Cialis works
faster, lasts up to 36 hours and has less side effects than Viagra.
Generic Levitra VARDENAFIL drug is one of the latest treatments for Erectile Dysfunction.
Levitra acts in the same way as Viagra by blocking an enzyme called PDE-5. Clinical studies show that Brand Levitra works faster and has less side effects than Viagra.
Generic Trial packs are your way to evaluate different brand ED drugs and decide which is best for you before ordering the larger packs.
