Disney is being threatened by the Democrat Senate leadership.

[Friday morning update]

Lileks has further thoughts:

I don’t think this is the “veiled threat” some are calling it, because there’s no way on earth the Democrats would introduce legislation to strip Disney of its broadcast license. It’s like threatening to interrupt the broadcast with winged monkeys. Disney lawyers would say, correctly, well, you and what army of winged monkeys? But I don’t recall Congress getting so deeply involved in the content of a specific television show before. Chilling effect? Heck no, not if the result is the truth. And who can possibly be against the truth.

Just so you know: 9/11 reset the clock for me. All hands went to midnight. I’m interested in what people did after that date, and if the movie shows that before the attack one side lacked feck and the other was feck-deficient, I don't worry about it. It's like revisiting Congressional debates about Hawaiian harbor security in November 1941. Y'all get a pass. The Etch-A-Sketch's turned over. Now: what have you said lately?

Indeed. Read entire.

Attach the word "fictional" and then all is cool.

ABC, meanwhile, is tip-toeing away from the film's version of events. In a statement, the network said the miniseries "is a dramatization, not a documentary, drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and from personal interviews."

Next up, a dramatization of George Bush and his Texas Air National Guard service. Not exactly accurate but done with the right spirit.

I'm sure Mike Powell can stick up for ABC

I predict this will end up blowing back in ABC-Disney's face.

It will also further divide America making us less able to confront the Islamic nut-jobs who do indeed wish us harm.

And just which party is it that screams "free speech rights are being violated", all the time?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat

ABC Disney has every right to air the series.

And the rest of us have the right to complain to their sponsors, shareholders and advertisers and tell everyone that the documentary simply is not accurate. Free speech all around.

However, the airing of this pseudo-documentary will inflame our gathering cultural civil war and leave us less united in the face of genuine Islamic threats.

I wonder how many people in the Democrats or on AmericaBlog have actually seen the program.

One more chip at the MSM integrity.

I do find it amusing, given that this fake-but-accurate dramatization has *nothing* on F911.

Where were all of these champions of justice and accuracy when that travesty was aired?

Anybody think we'll see Disney execs wining and dining in the next Republican convention?

That said, while I haven't seen the dramatization, it certainly sounds as if they took absurd liberties with history in order to make it more "entertaining". The result, if so, is a disservice to our history and to us all.

The really disturbing thing about this is that it shows just how out of sync the Dem leadership is right now. We need two rational parties in this country and right now we do not have that. And they crazier they get, the less responsible the GOP will get. This is not good for the country, and I really think that we are on the verge of a major political realignment in this country that will rip both parties apart. Republicans acting like Democrats, Democrats acting schizophrenic, and the far left trying for all they are worth to bring about the perfect Marxist-Leninist socialist Eco-state. Not a good situation.

And nobody on either side is stepping up and showing any real leadership when we desperately need it. And certainly none of the '08 candidates are impressive either. Where are the Churchillss and Trumans and Washingtons and Lincolns now that we need them? And all of this while we are at war with the Islamo-Facists. Wonderful.

What's that Chinese curse again? May you live in interesting times...

Yanking a license is unnecessary. Congressional investigations would do all the necessary damage. That's the way it would go down.

Yow. You know, Rand, I’m not familiar with this “AMERICAblog.” So it took a moment, and caused a bit of a start, when I realized they were printing this nasty letter by Democrats “…FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney” approvingly.

"And all of this while we are at war with the Islamo-Facists."

Only one side thinks we are at war with the Islamo Fascists. The other side thinks our main strategy is based on keeping the other party in power. Personally, I wonder about that myself.

Actually, this movie isn't going to change either mindset. All it's going to do is to make the election more intersting in an era when the major networks have been given huge power to influence same. Thank you McCain-Feingold.

So, of course the Democrats are screaming. They figured they had the old big 3 networks in their pockets and now Iger has thrown them a curve.
Meanwhile, they've also just managed to excite the entire Republican base with their half cocked hystrionics, acting like thugs and literally threating to use the government to force a network to change it's political programming. Now anyone with any interest in the first amendment will have to wonder just what happens if these intemperate fools end up running the government.

Does the Disney/ABC program make any mention of people who are running for office in the fall? If so, the Democrats may have a case under McCain-Feingold. ;)

McCain-Feingold be damned. The whole lot of incumbents up for reelection ought to be thrown out on their keisters. Replace them with independents and Libertarians.

I'm with Chris Mann... how many times have we been told we need to see what ever before we can criticize it. Now the Democrats want to censor an entire network for airing a television show.

I agree with Lileks, that the clock basically reset on that date. For example, I think Republicans deserve a great deal of blame for the timid response to Bin Laden in the late 90's because of their drive for impeachment. I recall the rhetoric that President Clinton was only acting to draw attention from legal problems. We know now the best response in 1998 would have been the Republicans encouraging more action against Bin Laden, not less.

However, as bad as Republican partisanship was back then, the Democrats seem intent on trumping them. If Clinton, Albright, and Berger want to sue ABC for defamation after the showing, then they should try to do so. I think that is a rational response (though I think they'll have a losing case). Having the government censor what is unquestionably speech is beyond justification in the US.

Where were all these people when Janet Jackson bared her unswathed bubbly during the family friendly SuperBowl? That was a far greater threat to America. Where was their outrage then?!!

"The Path to 9/11" [is] entirely unworthy of your time -- John Podhoretz

As I recall, J-Pod is a Right leaning fellow. Link:

After writing that Sandy Berger and Secretary Albright may well have a valid libel claim if PT911 airs unedited, John Podhoretz then writes this:

The one person who has no grounds for complaint is Bill Clinton himself.

"The Path to 9/11" gives the impression that, as president, Clinton never took bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States and the West seriously enough. And that is simply the unvarnished, undeniable truth.

Still, even here "The Path to 9/11" gets it wrong. The real truth about the failures of the U.S. government under both Clinton and Bush is not, as "The Path to 9/11" would have it, that the diabolical nature of the al Qaeda threat was obvious and unmistakable and that it was ignored by fools, charlatans and other downright unpleasant people who refused to listen to the Few Who Knew the Truth (meaning the late FBI official John O'Neill and that legend in his own mind, former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke).

The simple fact of the matter is that, with a million other things going on all at once - all of which seemed more pressing at the time, the threat went uncomprehended.

The 9/11 Commission rightly called this a "failure of imagination." It's the docudrama's failure to portray the False Peace accurately as a "failure of imagination" that makes "The Path to 9/11" entirely unworthy of your time on the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

Seems to track the Lileks quote Rand offers above. Everyone dropped the ball pre-9/11. Both Slick Willy and Dubya. Therefore to re-hash all of that is a waste of time.

I can agree with that easily enough. PT911: Waste of time. Deal?

I can agree with that easily enough. PT911: Waste of time. Deal?

And in an unprecedented move, Congress denies broadcast licenses to the entire television industry - a senior member was quoted, saying: "Its all just a waste of time. Deal!"

(Not that I disagree, mind you, but Congress sticking their nose in this should get them arrested IMHO)

It is rare I am on Lileks side but here you go:

I don’t think this is the “veiled threat” some are calling it, because there’s no way on earth the Democrats would introduce legislation to strip Disney of its broadcast license. It’s like threatening to interrupt the broadcast with winged monkeys. Disney lawyers would say, correctly, well, you and what army of winged monkeys?

Link? See Rand's original post, above.

= = =

Wow! I agree with Lileks and J-Pod. Maybe the moonbat antidote is working (or they caught the moonbat virus also).

Where was the official DNC outrage from the AMERICAN's of Democrat stripe, when the "docudrama" depicting GWB getting shot was announced? If the Democrats are all about truth, where were they THEN? Or is it all about their rutting ox getting gored?

OUCH! I got a cramp in my hand typing TRUTH and DEMOCRAT so close together!

All this is so fertile, such a groundwork for fuss, it seems the national disease.

The Docudrama "Death of a president" is being done
by private individuals shown at film festivals,
a private venue. ABC has the unusual issue of using
Public airwaves. I seem to recall much whining about
CBS doing a Reagan biography a few years back.

After all, one coudl do some serious compression
and dramatic license, showing a senile president
drooling while Col Oliver North gives weapons to
Iranian terrorists, taking money from Columbian
drug dealers while the Attorney General sells corrupt
contracts.

Do you mean like the dramatic license "Big Love" uses to put the Mormon church in a bad light? Or the dramatic license Micheal Moore uses?

The fact is, censorship is illegal for a reason!

So, did anyone watch the show? I'll admit to recording in on the DVR, but I haven't seen it yet. I am pissed I didn't record the CBS 9/11 documentary. That was well done the first time, and adding the "where are they now" was a nice touch.

I also watched United 93 again, this time on DVD. I highly recommend the movie. Most of the portrayal was done by professionals rather than actors. So when you see the ATC guys, they are really ATC guys. That's not to say it doesn't have dramatical effects that may be fictional or bias, but recreation after the fact is always difficult. Certainly, the events on-board the plane are best guesses.