The Spectacle Blog
The Traditional Values Coalition has posted six scenes it says were removed from ABC's "Path to 9/11" miniseries after complaints from former Clinton administration officials. I didn't have time to watch them all, but the first is the one in which Sandy Berger fails to make the call to take out bin Laden -- and it's an extremely unflattering portrayal.
One of these days I'd like to see some actor -- maybe John Goodman -- acting out Berger's removal of classified documents in his pants and socks.
Here in North Carolina, the only congressional race considered to be competitive this fall is in our 11th District, which pits incumbent Republican Rep. Charles Taylor against former Redskins quarterback Heath Shuler. Shuler has raised a lot of money, and Democrats are counting on this contest to help them retake the House. Charlie Cook rates it a "toss-up." Taylor is a pretty quiet guy and usually gets going late in his campaigns, but he has plenty of money of his own he can throw into the race.
Hey, Jed, pass the box of Kleenex, if there's anything left of it by the time your sobs are stanched. An apology to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson? You mean Mr. Wilson and Madame Plame? An apology for "blowing her cover" -- by which you mean blowing her like a curbside leaf through the covers of Vanity Fair -- in which Agent Plame's fashion kitsch managed the unintentional laugh riot of resurrecting Madeline Stowe's blonde-on-the-lam-and-in-sunglasses getup in 12 Monkeys -- a film ten times more serious than The Dreadful Leak ever managed to be? Or maybe the apology intented is for Joe Wilson's blow-dried monstrosity -- an act of desperate "virile" hubris that only foreigners like Koizumi and de Villepin can pull off -- sorry, Sen. "Other Joe" Biden...
Sorry to those who tried to get through to our site this afternoon but couldn't -- our host experienced a major router breakdown that took much longer to repair than he expected. But all operations are now go again, and no, we can't say were knocked off the air by the same malign forces that are teaching ABC television a thing or two or ten about free speech in the post-Clinton era.
MoveOn just sent its members an email saying that it was seeking 200,000 signatures for a petition to get the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11" pulled from the air.
And in case you didn't realize it, the film is part of an election year conspiracy:
The Path to 9/11 appears to be part of a coordinated push -- including speeches by President Bush and millions of dollars in advertising -- to exploit the five-year anniversary of 9/11 for political gain. That's not acceptable from anyone -- especially not a news organization like ABC.
Bush-Cheney-Rove-Halliburton-ABC. I don't know how I'd make it through this world if MoveOn wasn't there to enlighten me.
So former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage -- admitting it was he who first "leaked" Valerie Plame's CIA employ to Bob Novak -- says, "Oh, I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president, I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson." It's eight years almost to the day since I heard this sincere an apology. On 5 September 1998, Bill Clinton apologized for his "relationship" with Monica.
What both Clinton and now Armitage are sorry for is being found out, not for what they did. If Armitage had a shred of decency left, he'd be apologizing to Scooter Libby. Come to think of it, both Colin Powell and Armitage owe Libby the same apology. And the president, at this sorry point, owes Libby a pardon. Now, please. It's time to send Patrick Fitzgerald-Javert back to Chicago.
Over at Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi first calls Democrats attacks on Rumsfeld, "one of those groan-out-loud coordinated media-sandbag jobs, now standard procedure in American politics, where the various politicians separately make exactly the same pre-prepared 'jokes' in their respective 'extemporaneous' public remarks, delivering their message with all the wit and spontaneity of a Speak N' Spell," and then turns his vitriolic cannon on Joe Biden for a lengthy volley, which begins thusly:
In today's NY Times column (subscription required) Paul Krugman writes:
We are, finally, having a national discussion about inequality, and right-wing commentators are in full panic mode. Statistics, most of them irrelevant or misleading, are flying; straw men are under furious attack. It's all very confusing -- deliberately so. So let me offer a few clarifying comments.
The trouble is, at no point in the article does he quote specific "panicking" conservatives. Instead, he makes statements such as,"Conservative commentators tell us about wage gains for one-eyed bearded men with 2.5 years of college, or whatever - and conveniently forget to adjust for inflation." But isn't that just -- dare I say it -- a strawman? Meanwhile, consider this bit of economic news from today's business section of Krugman's own employer: