One last takeaway from the WP story on the search for bin Laden. Remember how one of the key breakdowns leading to the failure to prevent 9/11 was institutional resistance to sharing intelligence across agencies?
Looks like things have really improved:
Bureaucratic battles slowed down the hunt for bin Laden for the first two or three years, according to officials in several agencies, with both the Pentagon and the CIA accusing each other of withholding information. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's sense of territoriality has become legendary, according to these officials.In early November 2002, for example, a CIA drone armed with a Hellfire missile killed a top al-Qaeda leader traveling through the Yemeni desert. About a week later, Rumsfeld expressed anger that it was the CIA, not the Defense Department, that had carried out the successful strike.
"How did they get the intel?" he demanded of the intelligence and other military personnel in a high-level meeting, recalled one person knowledgeable about the meeting.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then director of the National Security Agency and technically part of the Defense Department, said he had given it to them.
"Why aren't you giving it to us?" Rumsfeld wanted to know.
Hayden, according to this source, told Rumsfeld that the information-sharing mechanism with the CIA was working well. Rumsfeld said it would have to stop.
A CIA spokesman said Hayden, now the CIA director, does not recall this conversation. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "The notion that the department would do anything that would jeopardize the success of an operation to kill or capture bin Laden is ridiculous." The NSA continues to share intelligence with the CIA and the Defense Department.
. . .
Today, however, no one person is in charge of the overall hunt for bin Laden with the authority to direct covert CIA operations to collect intelligence and to dispatch JSOC units. Some counterterrorism officials find this absurd. "There's nobody in the United States government whose job it is to find Osama bin Laden!" one frustrated counterterrorism official shouted. "Nobody!"
If Republicans don't pay a steep price politically this November for this kind of malfeasance, I really don't know what it will take to convince voters it's time for a change of course.
--David Kurtz
Back to the excellent WP story on the hunt for Osama bin Laden. While the story goes on at length about how Bush pulled operatives out of the region for use in the invasion of Iraq and about how the trail is now "stone cold," it also contains this pertinent piece of reporting:
But in the last three months, following a request from President Bush to "flood the zone," the CIA has sharply increased the number of intelligence officers and assets devoted to the pursuit of bin Laden. The intelligence officers will team with the military's secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and with more resources from the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies.The problem, former and current counterterrorism officials say, is that no one is certain where the "zone" is.
Playing politics with terrorism? See, just as I'm trying to break the stranglehold cynicism has on me, something like this comes along. I'm not sure there is such a thing as too cynical with these guys.
--David Kurtz
It's a constant battle not to fall victim to complete and unrelenting cynicism about this President and his Administration. Here's a perfect example of where the president is saying all the right things, yet I catch myself rolling my eyes in disbelief:
U.S. President George W. Bush personally signed off on a visa allowing former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami to visit the United States because he wanted to hear his views, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.. . .
"I was interested to hear what he had to say," Bush told the Wall Street Journal in an interview. "I'm interested in learning more about the Iranian government, how they think, what people think within the government."
. . .
"My hope is that diplomacy will work in convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. And in order for diplomacy to work, it's important to hear voices other than Ahmadinejad's," Bush added.
Part of me says, hopeful sign! The other side of me laughs darkly.
--David Kurtz
The CIA has a videotape that shows Osama Bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when he eluded capture by U.S. forces, according to the WP. Since then his trail has gone "stone cold":
The clandestine U.S. commandos whose job is to capture or kill Osama bin Laden have not received a credible lead in more than two years. Nothing from the vast U.S. intelligence world -- no tips from informants, no snippets from electronic intercepts, no points on any satellite image -- has led them anywhere near the al-Qaeda leader, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.. . .
On the videotape obtained by the CIA, bin Laden is seen confidently instructing his party how to dig holes in the ground to lie in undetected at night. A bomb dropped by a U.S. aircraft can be seen exploding in the distance. "We were there last night," bin Laden says without much concern in his voice. He was in or headed toward Pakistan, counterterrorism officials think.
That was December 2001. Only two months later, Bush decided to pull out most of the special operations troops and their CIA counterparts in the paramilitary division that were leading the hunt for bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for war in Iraq, said Flynt L. Leverett, then an expert on the Middle East at the National Security Council.
"I was appalled when I learned about it," said Leverett, who has become an outspoken critic of the administration's counterterrorism policy. "I don't know of anyone who thought it was a good idea. It's very likely that bin Laden would be dead or in American custody if we hadn't done that."
Several officers confirmed that the number of special operations troops was reduced in March 2001.
In another indication of how seriously the Bush Administration takes the pursuit of bin Laden, his FBI Most Wanted Poster makes no mention of the 9/11 attack.
--David Kurtz
Kentucky businessman Vernon Jackson, who pleaded guility to bribing Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), sentenced to 7+ years in prison. He continues to cooperate with the investigation and won't report to jail until sometime after the first of the year.
--David Kurtz
Sunday's Washington Post front page:
Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.
The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall.
Anyone not see this coming?
--David Kurtz
TPM Reader BH checks in from New Zealand:
Just reading through the paper this morning in Christchurch, New Zealand, and I see that Channel 1 is planning to air "Path to 911" tonight. Thought everyone might be interested in the fact that this shameless propaganda isn't limited to the states and has the potential to impact people (and history books) everywhere.
If I have my time zones correct, BH is reading the paper on Sunday morning New Zealand time.
--David Kurtz
Earlier, I wrote that I was starting to think that ABC's role in the "The Path to 9/11" was less about the network being boneheaded and more about it being complicit in a right-wing propaganda push. Says LA Times media critic Tim Rutten:
It is none of those things.It's an opportunistic and self-interested organization that somehow thought it could approach the most wrenching American tragedy since Pearl Harbor with the values that prevail among network television executives — the sort of ad hoc ethics that would make a streetwalker blush — and that nobody would mind.
--David Kurtz
I have been particularly fascinated with the internecine war among Republicans being played out in the Rhode Island Senate race. Those who have been following along at TPM's Election Central know the national GOP is spending a small fortune in the Republican primary to save incumbent Lincoln Chafee from a conservative challenger, the thinking being that the moderate Chafee stands a much better chance of winning the general election.
Especially striking has been how little coverage the race has gotten compared to the Democratic Primary in Connecticut, where the national party basically stayed out the way. You would think the GOP spending money in a tight election year to defeat a bona fide conservative candidate would get more attention.
For one, the GOP spending money against a pro-life Republican to shore up a pro-choice incumbent validates what religious conservatives have complained about for years: that the GOP only comes calling on Election Day. In this case, they're being ignored on Election Day, too.
--David Kurtz
In the earlier post about the NYT, Lamont and Lewinksy, I wrote: "Who cares? It's not as if Lamont is touring Connecticut talking about berets and cigars."
To which a TPM reader replies:
No. You're missing this pretty badly (as did Drum). Lamont has been talking about this all spring and summer.And this is a reporter doing a good job.
Lamont is being asked about it repeatedly because L'affair Lewinsky has long been a standard part of Lamont's attack on Lieberman.
And since the Lamont camp has basically been repeatedly making a false charge, I don't blame a reporter for wanting to pin the candidate down on the precise basis of the attacks.
If L'affair Lewinsky has been a standard Lamont attack on Lieberman, then I would be wrong to say the NYT was ginning up news on this. So, have berets and cigars been a part of the Lamont repertoire (I mean that figuratively, folks)? Shoot me the links, and I'll eat some crow.
Late update: However, as a number of readers have pointed, the NYT's characterization of the email that Lamont sent Lieberman way back when does seem a tad misleading. You be the judge.
--David Kurtz
Widowed husband of former Disney exec who died on 9/11 writes Bob Iger, asks him to pull the 9/11 pseudo-doc.
--Josh Marshall
You still don't believe Social Security gets phased out next year if the GOP retains control of Congress? Then you definitely need to read this.
--Josh Marshall
Yesterday, we touched on the conservative evangelical credentials of the director of ABC's 9/11 hackumentary. But Max Blumenthal has a rundown on the full scope of the right-wing apparatus behind the production and marketing of the miniseries:
A week later, ABC hosted LFF co-founder Murty and several other conservative operatives at an advance screening of The Path to 9/11. (While ABC provided 900 DVDs of the film to conservatives, Clinton administration officials and objective reviewers from mainstream outlets were denied them.) Murty returned with a glowing review for FrontPageMag that emphasized the film's partisan nature. "'The Path to 9/11' is one of the best, most intelligent, most pro-American miniseries I've ever seen on TV, and conservatives should support it and promote it as vigorously as possible," Murty wrote. As a result of the special access granted by ABC, Murty's article was the first published review of The Path to 9/11, preceding those by the New York Times and LA Times by more than a week.Murty followed her review with a blast email to conservative websites such as Liberty Post and Free Republic on September 1 urging their readers to throw their weight behind ABC's mini-series. "Please do everything you can to spread the word about this excellent miniseries," Murty wrote, "so that 'The Path to 9/11' gets the highest ratings possible when it airs on September 10 & 11! If this show gets huge ratings, then ABC will be more likely to produce pro-American movies and TV shows in the future!"
I figured ABC was mostly guilty of agreeing to air a boneheaded docudrama, but it's starting to look like ABC was also complicit in a right-wing PR campaign.
--David Kurtz
I was beaten to the punch in lamenting the NYT story yesterday about Ned Lamont criticizing Joe Lieberman for criticizing Bill Clinton's conduct with Monica Lewinksy. Tangential enough for you?
The initial NYT piece makes it clear that the paper steered its on-the-record dinner conversation with Lamont to the decade-old scandal. Who cares? It's not as if Lamont is touring Connecticut talking about berets and cigars.
But the pathetic gotcha journalism continues today with--help us all--a follow-up story that Lamont actually praised Lieberman at the time for his criticisms of Clinton.
Isn't this the sort of ginned-up news that was supposed to have been ushered out with Howell Raines?
--David Kurtz
Yep.
Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan.
Via Political Wire
Kevin Drum has more here.
--David Kurtz
Before DK shows up, a couple quick thoughts on the new CNN poll. First, how's this for a silly question.
The headline of the CNN article reads: "Americans foresee "more gridlock" in government if Democrats take over the House and/or the Senate after elections this fall, a CNN poll shows."
How'd they come up with that ...
Respondents were asked "next year, it is possible that the country will have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress. Do you think that is more likely to result in more cooperation between the two parties or more likely to result in more gridlock and stalemate in the government?"Seventy percent expect "gridlock and stalemate" while 27 percent believe there would be "cooperation between the two parties." Three percent had no opinion. Half the sample, or 502 people, was asked the gridlock question.
I don't think I disagree with this. But isn't this a textbook example of the question itself dictating the answer?
I mean, now Republicans control everything in Washington. Next year Democrats may control Congress and the Republicans the White House. Things will run just as smoothly? Or maybe we'll get gridlock?
Are ya with me on this? Just seems like a silly exercise.
But further down there's a very interesting number. And I think a pretty bad one for the GOP.
Fifty-seven percent of the respondents said they think it would be good for the country "if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush administration has done in the past six years." Forty-one percent said such probes would be bad for the country. Half of the sample was asked this question, also.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised at just how high that number is. A solid majority want a Democratic Congress to dig its teeth into real investigations of the administration.
The conventional wisdom usually has it that most voters don't like bickering and investigations. They want to get things done, and all that. But this suggests that a clear majority of Americans realizes that what this country really needs to get done is get to the bottom of what's happened to this country over the last half dozen years. It's not a pretty picture.
--Josh Marshall
As many of you have noticed, TPM Reader DK has been guest blogging on weekends here at TPM recently. I'm happy to say that this anonymous individual seems to have developed quite a following. But some readers, I think understandably, have asked, who is he or she? And why does this person's identity have to kept a secret?
Donna Karan? Don King?
Since transparency and truth in advertising are a lot of what good blogging is about, we've even had a few people say I shouldn't have an anonymous blogger guest host here at TPM.
Let me try to address this.
And let me start by telling you a bit about who DK isn't. DK is not someone in politics. Not someone who works for the government. And not someone who works in the media. A lot of the concern with someone who's anonymous, I think, is that their identity would show some unrevealed agenda in their writing. The truth behind DK's anonymity is a bit more mundane. DK is a lawyer at a law firm in the midwest. And, simply stated, DK's professional position as a firm lawyer isn't compatible with their free and frank exposition of views and analysis of the issues of the day here at TPM.
DK has been a regular reader of TPM for a long time. And I got to know DK as one of the many amateur (in the best sense of the word) researcher/tipsters who help me put TPM together by finding articles I should be looking at, searching the net for more information about the stories of the day, etc.
I understand the concerns about anonymity. And I respect them. All things being equal, I'd prefer DK write under his/her own name. But I understand their need to remain anonymous, at least for now. And I think, on balance, the voice and point of view DK brings to our virtual pages outweighs the downside of anonymity.
--Josh Marshall
Director of 9/11 ABC doc tied to evangelical group trying to "impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out" with godly film makers.
--Josh Marshall
Sounds like this is about to get considerably worse for ABC. First report coming shortly over at TPMmuckraker.com.
--Josh Marshall
Top historians write ABC, tell them to do the right thing, yank the pseudo-doc.
--Josh Marshall
Given that there's been essentially no congressional oversight in six years and way more than six years worth of wrongdoing have occured, there's no shortage of things to investigate. But following up on the piece about the US government, under President Bush, paying US-based reporters to write anti-Castro copy, this is one investigation I'm really eager to see: a full and detailed catalog of which journalists the US government has had on the take during the last six years.
In a way what's most telling is that it doesn't even appear to be part of one program. I doubt very much that the same bureaucrats and appointees were paying these anti-Castro guys as were paying Armstrong Williams to yap about No Child Left Behind. Or Maggie Gallagher about pre-marital sex, or whatever it was they paid her to do.
It's like a culture of propaganda that has suffused the whole administration. And the specific instances we've found out about all appear to have been revealed by specific investigations or random squealers. And that suggests that once subpoenas get handed out, we'll find out about a lot more.
--Josh Marshall
Reuters ...
At least 10 Florida journalists received regular payments from a U.S. government program aimed at undermining the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, The Miami Herald reported on Friday.Total payments since 2001 ranged from $1,550 to $174,753 per journalist, according to the newspaper, which said it found no instance in which those involved had disclosed that they were being paid by the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
That office runs Radio and TV Marti, U.S. government programs broadcast to Cuba to promote democracy and freedom on the communist island. Its programming cannot be broadcast within the United States because of anti-propaganda laws.
The Cuban government has long contended that some Spanish-language journalists in Miami were on the U.S. government payroll.
The Herald said two of the journalists receiving the payments worked for its Spanish-language sister publication, El Nuevo Herald, and a third was a freelance contributor for that newspaper, which fired all three after learning of the payments.
Embarrassed for your country yet?
--Josh Marshall
Harold Ford only one point behind Corker in Tennessee, according to Rasmussen.
--Josh Marshall
9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey speaks again about ABC's "Path to 9/11."
"You can’t sit there as ABC and say, `Gee, we don’t have any responsibility.'... They should make a good faith effort to get this as close to the facts as possible…They can’t claim it’s just entertainment. This is going to have an impact on the national political scene."
--Paul Kiel
ABC concedes to making minor changes in upcoming pre-9/11 docudrama. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
The tide turns? From the NYT ...
Under growing pressure from Democrats and aides to former President Bill Clinton, ABC is re-evaluating and in some cases re-editing crucial scenes in its new mini-series “The Path to 9/11” to soften its portrait of the Clinton administration’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden, according to people involved in the project.Among the changes, ABC is altering one scene in which an actor playing Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser, abruptly hangs up on a C.I.A. officer during a critical moment in a military operation, according to Thomas H. Kean, a consultant on the ABC project and co-chairman of the federal Sept. 11 commission.
Devil will certainly be in the details.
Or guiding the souls of the producers.
One or the other.
--Josh Marshall
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.
And on the subject of al Qaida, don't miss James Fallows piece on bin Laden and Co. in the current issue of The Atlantic. Good stuff.
--Josh Marshall
US Military comes out against President Bush's campaign season plan for kangaroo courts at Guantanamo.
--Josh Marshall
Former 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey tells ABC: "be careful" and "respectful" of what happened leading up to 9/11.
--Justin Rood
Hiring Immediately: Are you experienced with web programming and coding? Handy with Movable Type, Drupal, PHP, etc.? We're looking for a part-time techie to work on several projects through the election. There's a good chance it will become a full-time and permanent position after November 7th. Interested? We have a strong preference for someone who is New York based. But that's not a requirement. And the web being what it is, we'll entertain applications from anyone with a reliable web connection. We of course also have a strong preference for someone with a thorough knowledge of what TPM does, our different sites, etc. If you're interested, send us an email with a resume to our normal comments line with the subject line: "Gizmocrat".
--Josh Marshall
A change in tune: Educational giant Scholastic got spanked by Media Matters and others for producing flimsy classroom materials to accompany ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11" docudrama.
The company just announced they're pulling the old materials -- and producing new ones that stress issues including media literacy. Sample question: "What are the differences between factual reporting and a dramatization?"
--Justin Rood
Asia Times: "With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan. While the truce has generated much attention, a more significant development is an underhand deal between pro-al-Qaeda elements and Pakistan in which key al-Qaeda figures will either not be arrested or those already in custody will be set free."
Fighting them in Iraq because we're afraid to fight them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
--Josh Marshall
GOP Push-pollers parachute in to New Hampshire to help embattled GOP Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH).
--Josh Marshall
Clinton spokesman calls ABC and Disney "despicable" for airing 9/11 docudrama.
--Paul Kiel
TPM Reader RF on the Gitmo shell game ...
I don't think Bush's political gamesmanship with the transfer to Gitmo of the 14 prisoners is such a big deal. Clever, yes, but not "spectacular ambush" or "best maneuvers of his presidency": (1) Bush's trustworthiness is still below 50%, so there's fertile ground for Dems to argue that he's once again manipulating events for political advantage - if they'll only say so (unlike Pelosi's tepid response yesterday) (2) The big issue is still Iraq - Dems should be saying this, too.The really big issue is Bush's incompetence. Why the Dems haven't made this a theme in this election - in fact, a constant theme since 2002 - escapes me. Like Charlie Brown, everything he touches gets ruined. Dems should have an obsession about reminding people in detail how much Bush knew, or was in a position to know, about 9/11 (or Iraq/Katrina/deficit ...) and then rhetorically asking how any more knowledge could improve things. To get specific about the congressional elections, Representative X (or Senator Y) should point out how Repubs in both houses of congress have refused oversight and accountability. Just my $0.02.
RF is right on in noting that most people no longer trust the president. And that is very fertile ground.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I guess that's his final answer. Tennessee GOP senate candidate Corker categorically refuses to debate Harold Ford on Russert's Meet the Press.
--Josh Marshall
The response from WCVB, the ABC Boston affiliate ...
Thank you for contacting us regarding the ABC special, “The Path to 9/11.”This Sunday and Monday WCVB-TV Channel 5 will air ABC’s commercial-free broadcasts of “The Path to 911. On Monday, Part Two will be followed by a special edition of “Primetime Live,” an electronic town meeting.
We will forward your concerns to the ABC Network, since they are still in the final edit of the program.
The following disclaimer will air throughout the movie:
“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."ABC further states, “The events that lead to 9/11 originally sparked great debate, so it’s not surprising that a movie surrounding those events has revived the debate. The attacks were a pivotal moment in our history that should never be forgotten and it’s fitting that the discussion continues.”
From talk shows to internet blogs, the discussions about “The Path to 911” have generated much heat, but precious little light. It is interesting to note that viewers, who have been kind enough to contact us directly, arise from two distinct camps: pro-President Bill Clinton and pro-President George W.Bush. That is correct -- both sides have been complaining.
Having reviewed a copy of this mini-series, the management at Channel 5 feels strongly that viewers should decide for themselves the merits of this movie. Unfortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around – Republican, Democrat, government official and everyday citizen.
Neil Ungerleider | Assistant News Director | WCVB | 5 TV Place Needham MA 02494
Also of note, a lot of stations, like the ABC affiliate in Cleveland, seem to be fibbing to their viewers, claiming that they have no choice but to air the movie, even though that's not true, since they are independent ABC affiliates.
--Josh Marshall
WSOC in Charlotte is sending out the ABC Network press release to viewers.
--Josh Marshall
Bob Corker, Republican candidate for senate in Tennessee, still hasn't agreed to debate Harold Ford on Meet the Press.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader L chimes in on Scholastic ...
On the more mundane matter of Scholastic ... just as with ABC affiliates, the best pressure is financial. This dKos diary quotes a Scholastic sales rep as saying that pressure on the school districts not to buy Scholastic products would get their attention in a hurry. It recommends contacting school districts to complain about Scholastic and urge a boycott of Scholastic material, and then letting Scholastic know about it.
--Josh Marshall
Boston's ABC affiliate WCVB is apparently telling viewers they have no choice but to run the ABC 9/11 movie. But I'm not sure that's true since they're an independent affiliate. The station is owned by Hearst, not ABC.
--Josh Marshall
Bill Clinton's attorney, Bruce Lindsey, has written to ABC chief Bob Iger protesting the network's decision to air the 9/11 docudrama, "The Path to 9/11." Full text of the letter here.
--Paul Kiel
Let me return for a moment to my comments last night about the Lee Siegel/Sprezzatura controversy. As I said last night, what Siegel did seemed to me at some level just not honest with readers. But it wasn't clear to me precisely why. Emails from a number of readers, however, have allowed me to parse the technological and ethical contours of the question and clarify the problem. All or most commenters may be anonymous. But to be an 'anonymous' commenter on your own site is not to be anonymous but rather to impersonate, since you are claiming to be a third party, someone other than yourself. I think that clarifies it for me.
Of course, Siegel was scotched on lame-assery clause regardless. But this only adds to his infamy.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader DT on the ABC bamboozle and Scholastic ...
I think Scholastic may be the weak link here. Scholastic is in the business of teaching children -- and that requires that it present factual material. ABC will not readily pull The Path To 9/11 because it has advertised it so heavily and because it can pretend that its semi-fictional account is based on facts, etc. Also, I doubt ABC can reshoot made-up scenes between now and Sunday or find a replacement on its schedule. The best we may see from ABC is a more prominent display of the falsity of its docudrama.Scholastic, on the other hand, does not have the same investment as ABC does in the program. It would not surprise me if Scholastic executives were unaware of the liberties that the docudrama takes with the facts. Scholastic will suffer much more reputational harm from teaching lies to children than ABC will from airing a "docudrama." We can already see that while abc.com still prominently advertises The Path To 9/11, Scholastic has, at least temporarily, scrubbed its site of 9/11 materials. The corporate offices of Scholastic are at 212-343-6400. (I note that a customer service representative offered me this number without prompting when I mentioned the 9/11 controversy, so I'm not handing out a number that Scholastic is hiding.)
If Scholastic pulls out of the project because the docudrama is inaccurate, that would increase pressure on ABC to admit that its program contains gross falsehoods.
This may be true. I would also say, though, that you get the names of the key advertisers with your local ABC affiliates and contact them, and you'll hear people squeal very quickly.
--Josh Marshall
With control of Congress nearing their grasp, Dems pressure lobbyists to fund their takeover. That and other news of the day in today's Daily Muck.
--Justin Rood
Jack Shafer has a very good and fairly Shaferly piece in Slate about the Lee Siegel brouhaha. Or, to be more specific because there are several, the one in which he got his TNR blog deep-sixed for toasting, adoring and defending himself in the guise of the commenter "sprezzatura".
Shafer's point or his question is simply: what exactly did Siegel do wrong? Everyone's anonymous in a comment thread. Why can't he be too?
I must say that I kind of agree with this. At least, in the narrow sense. Earlier this year the LA Times bounced the blog of business columnist Michael Hiltzik -- who, by the way, wrote a really good book about the Social Security wars -- for commenting at his and other blogs under a pseudonym. And it really wasn't clear to me at the time why this should really be such a federal offense.
For the record, the only place I can think where I've commented in recent history is at TPMCafe. And there I'm "joshtpm." So I figure people know who I am. But again, it's not really clear to me why doing otherwise would be a journalistic breach. I'm not saying it's okay. But it's one of those questions that, I think, when you break it down is not completely clear. The reason I don't do it, I guess, is that at some level it doesn't seem honest to me, especially when it's my blog or one like TPMCafe which I run even if I don't write there that often.
Shafer, at the end of his piece, I think comes back to the real issue with Siegel -- not that what he did is so shocking in itself but that his postings (once exposed as his) were so pompous, self-glorifying and morally frivolous that I think Frannk Foer must have just thought he embarrassed the magazine.
If other forms of employment have 'morals' clauses, punditry, I think, has a tacit lame-assery clause, which Frank must have thought Siegel violated. Like 'moral turpitude', 'lame assery' is one of those words which is both vague and endlessly extensible and yet so clear-cut and obvious when you see it right there in front of you.
(ed.note: I consider myself a friend of Foer's. I've never met Siegel.)
--Josh Marshall
So here's where we are. It now seems clear to just about everyone that the other shoe has now dropped. 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.
Dare Democrats to vote for nothing. If they do, mutilate them with 30 seconds. If they don't, sow dissension among the opposition.
It's hardly a surprise. This whole White House is the fruit of the poison tree. Their national security policy has always been essentially political. Nothing has changed. It's what all of us have always predicted.
But here's where it gets interesting. Three Republican senators say they won't play ball: Warner, McCain and Graham.
If the president can't get a clean partisan vote in the senate, that takes a lot of the wind out of his sails, though they may be happy just to do the bogus vote in the House.
Warner, I don't see where he gets rolled. He's almost 80. Been a senator for twenty-five years. Been married to Liz Taylor. Opposed a Republican senate candidate from his own state. I think he sticks.
Graham, he seems like a fairly straight arrow on this stuff. Figure the same for him.
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.
But there's another possibility.
McCain's no fool. He can see that Bush is now about as popular as a week old mackerel. And he also knows that the GOP nomination will only get him the presidency if he still has some colorable claim to political independence when the election comes around. McCain may figure that he's pandered and kowtowed enough to the Republican base that standing up to Bush can actually be in his political interest.
--Josh Marshall
ABC local affiliates owned by Hearst ...
Boston, MA WCVB
Manchester, NH WMUR
Pittsburgh, PA WTAE
W. Palm Beach, FL WPBF
Portland-Auburn, ME WMTW
Kansas City, MO KMBC
Milwaukee, WI WISN
Oklahoma City, OK KOCO
Omaha, NE KETV
Jackson, MS WAPT
Fort Smith/Fayettville, AR KHBS/KHOG
Albuquerque, NM KOAT
Honolulu, HI KITV
Sinclair Broadcasting owns ...
St. Louis, MO KDNL
Columbus, OH WSYX
Asheville, NC WLOS
Dayton, OH WKEF
Mobile, AL/Pensacola, FL WEAR
Springfield, IL WICD
Springfield, MA WGGB
If memory serves, Sinclair refused to air the edition of Nightline when Ted Koppel read the names of soldiers who had died in Iraq.
Also, we're hearing 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.
--Josh Marshall
ABC's disclaimer, which they say will run "throughout" their 9/11 movie ...
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.
Network officials have sent a statement affiliates are supposed to read to viewers who write in or call to complain. And basically the statement is just a recitation of this disclaimer.
--Josh Marshall
Like we told you.
From RNC Chair Ken Mehlman's email out tonight ...
It's very simple. Our government has no more basic obligation than to protect the American people in a time of war. Today, President Bush outlined the steps America is taking to question and detain the world's most violent terrorists, and announced legislation to try these terrorists before military commissions.Read the President's speech and watch the video.
Because of interrogation programs by the CIA, our nation has gained invaluable intelligence that has saved American lives. Interrogations of terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, have led to the arrests of al Qaeda operatives planning to carry out attacks inside the United States and revealed the terror network's plan to obtain biological weapons. In one chilling interrogation, Mohammed described instructing his operatives to set off explosions in buildings at points high enough to prevent those trapped from escaping out of the windows.
These new revelations are a clear reminder that the threat is real, and that we must pursue victory in this war with all our might. Because a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year put the CIA's interrogation program at risk, the President is sending legislation to Congress to specifically authorize the creation of military commissions to try these suspected terrorists for war crimes. When this legislation is passed, the people our intelligence agencies believe orchestrated 9/11 can face justice.
Watch key excerpts of the President's address and write a letter to the editor on these important efforts to keep Americans safe.
Time and time again, some Democrats in Washington have questioned why our government needs tools like these to prevent attacks on American soil. They have questioned the terrorist surveillance program, and bragged about "killing" the Patriot Act. The #2 Democrat in the Senate even likened America's interrogation practices to those in Nazi or Soviet concentration camps.
Americans now have the facts about these vital efforts to prevent future attacks. The terrorists in American custody are not just innocent bystanders. They are dangerous murderers who would kill again if set free. Take a stand and ensure our military and intelligence agencies continue to have every tool they need to fight this threat.
Right on schedule.
--Josh Marshall
ABC 5 in Minneapolis to Viewers: Don't Blame Us. The Network Made Us Do It!
Many television viewers have called or written to us to share their opinion of the ABC Special "Path to 9/11". We may not all agree on the subject matter of certain programming, but Channel 5 does believe it is important to share information (often controversial) in order to bring different points of view into the public discourse. Also, as the ABC affiliate, Channel 5 broadcasts ABC network programming but does not determine the content of it. We are the only locally-owned television station serving the Twin Cities, and hope that you will judge ABC network offerings separately from Channel 5's own local news and public affairs programming. As a matter of public record, your feedback is included in our public file. We also suggest that you make your opinion known to the originator of the program: ABCNEWS. To help, here is the contact information: ABC Audience Information Department at 818/460-7477. You may also contact the network via email to abc.audience.relations@abc.com, or by visiting the network's websites www.abc.com or www.abcnews.com.Again, we appreciate your feedback and do hope that you will continue to watch Channel 5.
Sincerely,
Mike Smith
Director of Programming and Operations
KSTP-TV & KSTC.TV
What are the locals telling you?
--Josh Marshall
A bit more on ABC's O&Os, the local affiliates who are actually owned and operated by ABC parent company Disney. Here's the list of all of them. But the rest -- listed here -- are independently owned. They don't have to run the ABC 9/11 bamboozler if they don't want to.
Just to remind everyone, think back to the Sinclair Broadcasting imbroglio. Petitions don't mean jack. They don't care. Local affiliates, though, live and die by the revenue they get from local advertisers. It's a really big deal.
So take a look at the list of independent affiliates. And just ask them what they're going to do. No need to be rude or unpleasant. It's just a question. If you get a response, let us know and we'll share it with the rest of our readers.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I admit it, my curiosity got the best of me. So I decided to call a few ABC local affiliates and see what the deal is, specifically whether they were planning on airing ABC's Path to 9/11 and whether they planned on airing any rebuttal to the alleged errors contained in it.
I tried to get through to someone at Boston's WHDH. But I couldn't find a number that anyone would answer. So I moved on to KABC, the LA station that I grew up watching. The woman who I spoke to informed me that, yes, they were airing it. And no there would not be any rebuttal. However, there was going to be a "disclaimer" shown "throughout" the two night presentation. I had a hard time getting down the whole text of the disclaimer she read out to me. So I asked if she could email it to me. But she said she wasn't allowed to do that.
Anyway, after that, a few readers helpfully pointed out that the ABC stations in the biggest markets are pretty much all O&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.
Do you live in a media market with an ABC channel that isn't directly owned by Disney?
Late Update: My bad. The Boston ABC affiliate is WCVB.
--Josh Marshall
Following up on the earlier post. I'd be particularly curious whether ABC local affiliates in the bigger blue state media markets are considering either not airing ABC's agitprop 9/11 movie or airing some rebuttal to its apparent distortions and falsehoods. Boston? New York? LA? San Francisco? Anyone heard anything?
--Josh Marshall
The Corner's Mario Loyola explains what the war on terror is all about to Republicans: "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."
--Josh Marshall
Just out of curiosity: Does anyone know if there are any local ABC affiliates balking at showing the networks 9/11 bamboozlement documentary?
--Josh Marshall
Clinton speaks out on ABC 9/11 bamboozlement flick, confirms that Clinton officials were denied opportunity for pre-screening.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader ML is confused by the president ...
I am a bit confused, too. I thought the administration and its lackeys claimed it was treasonous to publicly discuss these secret prisons. I thought that the administration and its lackeys were pushing for journalists to be prosecuted for reporting about their existence. I thought that we were disloyal Americans for talking about such secret prisons. Are the administration's past statements no longer operable now that there is an election two months away?
ML is a tad snarky about it. But, really, it's the ugly truth. So much weight was put on the claim that these men were so dangerous they needed to be hidden in darkness. Long war. Long twilight struggle.
But the congressional generic won't budge off that 10 point GOP deficit. So what the hell.
--Josh Marshall
Maybe I'm missing something. But President Bush's announcement today of the transfer fourteen accused terrorists from secret prisons abroad to Guantanamo Bay seems pretty elementary in terms of political strategy, no?
As we speculated last night, 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.
What am I missing exactly?
Remember: It's all about the politics.
--Josh Marshall
Epiphany Watch: Arizona GOPers call RNC Chair Mehlman a liar.
Also in the News: rats urgently seek new marine transportion.
--Josh Marshall