Tempest. Teapot. 1984. Plus Newt!

Well, now. THIS is getting maximum exposure in the ‘sphere… Bubba Goes Ballistic on ABC about Its Damning 9/11 Movie. Left, Right, and Center, everyone has something to say! The NY Post leads with:

WASHINGTON - A furious Bill Clinton is warning ABC that its mini-series "The Path to 9/11" grossly misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden - and he is demanding the network "pull the drama" if changes aren't made.

Clinton pointedly refuted several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.

I just love it when the Left gets their knickers in a twist. Here’s the ever-strident and profanity-laden Shakespeare’s Sis, unexpurgated:

As Digby notes: “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.” And, more importantly, it’s being done not as a rewrite of history, but as a “first draft while the immediate events [are] still being debated.” All ABC’s protestations about how this isn’t “a documentary” don’t mean fuck-all when they’re simultaneously claiming that it’s based on the 9/11 Report.

This is totally, totally unacceptable. Disney is deliberately interfering with elections, and if they air this steaming heap of shit, their broadcast license should be immediately revoked.

An awesome display, eh? And somewhat ignorant of how the broadcasting biz actually works, too. Disney is a studio, and as a content provider, doesn’t have a “broadcast license.” Disney owns the ABC network, true. Doubtless Disney also owns one or more stations (I’m speculating: I don’t really know), and those stations’ licenses could be revoked for reasons other than being politically incorrect. But, Hey! Details…

On the Right, Confederate Yankee has a good post on the subject, with lots of links. Excerpt:

The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde.

Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down.

Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval.

The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party.

[…]

Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license.

Their behavior is shameful.

No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see.

What he said.

The Anchoress has some good advice for Clinton, specifically, and Democrats, in general (along with lotsa good links):

When it comes to this film, The Path to 9/11, it seems to me Clinton and his pals would be wiser to simply let the thing play, than to do the freak. People will watch the movie, shrug and say, “well, that’s pretty much what we always thought,” and they’d forget about it the next day. By panicking and demanding revisions to the film, and by sending out his usual minions to talk the thing down, Clinton is just making the whole thing a much bigger story. He is creating red headlines on Drudge and turning this film into a national incident. A stupid move. For such a smart man he’s never understood Gertrude’s economy of language in Hamlet when she said, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Too late, Anchoress. The Dems have already made asses out of themselves. Again.

And rumor has it that Disney/ABC has caved to pressure and will “edit” the film:

The Ostroy Report has learned from a reliable source connected to ABC that an unnamed ABC executive said that former President Bill Clinton called Disney President and CEO Robert Iger this week to voice his anger and frustration over the network's plan to air a six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," on Sunday and Monday, and that Iger agreed to make certain changes requested by Clinton. According to this ABC source, the film is currently being edited. In seeking confirmation, our call to Iger's office went straight into voicemail. We will update our story if and when we hear from a Disney official. Disney is the parent company of ABC.

The Chicago Tribune says:

ABC toned down a scene that involved Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel "Sandy" Berger, declining to give the order to kill bin Laden, according to a person involved with the film who declined to be identified. "That sequence has been the focus of attention," the source said.

The network also decided that the credits would say the film is based "in part" on the 9/11 panel report, rather than "based on" the report, as the producers originally intended.

Hmmm. Welcome (back) to 1984. Ministry of Truth, indeed. I’m revolted.

I probably devoted way too much space to the foregoing and not nearly enough to Newt Gringrich’s op-ed in today’s WSJ. The Speaker offers up a prescription for victory in the war against Islamic Fascism, drawing parallels between the situations faced by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and George Bush in the current war.

By the summer of 1862, with thousands of Americans already dead or wounded and the hopes of a quick resolution to the war all but abandoned, three political factions had emerged. There were those who thought the war was too hard and would have accepted defeat by negotiating the end of the United States by allowing the South to secede. Second were those who urged staying the course by muddling through with a cautious military policy and a desire to be "moderate and reasonable" about Southern property rights, including slavery.

We see these first two factions today. The Kerry-Gore-Pelosi-Lamont bloc declares the war too hard, the world too dangerous. They try to find some explainable way to avoid reality while advocating return to "normalcy," and promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.

Most government officials constitute the second wing, which argues the system is doing the best it can and that we have to "stay the course"--no matter how unproductive. But, after being exposed in the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, it will become increasingly difficult for this wing to keep explaining the continuing failures of the system.

[…]

The first and greatest lesson of the last five years parallels what Lincoln came to understand. The dangers are greater, the enemy is more determined, and victory will be substantially harder than we had expected in the early days after the initial attack. Despite how painful it would prove to be, Lincoln chose the road to victory. President Bush today finds himself in precisely the same dilemma Lincoln faced 144 years ago. With American survival at stake, he also must choose. His strategies are not wrong, but they are failing. And they are failing for three reasons.

(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy, resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized. (3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed to achieve those goals.

This is a good, solid piece of writing. It’s very, very good. Mr. Gingrich has an acute understanding of the problem, and his proposed solutions are sound. The only deficiency I see in his proposals is moving the bureaucracy. Hercules’ labors were trivial, by comparison. Be that as it may…I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ll vote for this man should he decide to run for president.

Update: STILL can’t post a photo. {sigh}