POSTED BY JUSTIN LEVINE!!!!! [NOT PATTERICO]

Well, it now looks like full blown partisan warfare has broken out over the “Path To 9/11” – and the film will inevitably (and unfortunately) be seen through that lens.

It also looks like my work schedule will prevent me from seeing the latest broadcast cut of the film when it airs, so it will be difficult for me to compare what was cut and assess its impact.

But back to the debate…

Even though we are NOT the same person, I heartily endorse Pattreico’s take on this controversy (including the notion that having more historical accuarcy is never a bad thing, and that Richard Clarke doesn’t have a whole lot of credibility – despite being depicted as a hero in this film). He has provided some useful links to this debate, so “Thanks P!”

The first thing I want to emphasize is that everyone should read pgs. 108-143 of the 9/11 Commission report as a background to this current debate [meaning the pages of the document itself – not the Adobe Reader pages].

Let’s also try to all stipulate and agree about a few things:

(more…)

Nice broadcasting license you got there, Squire. It’d be a real shame if you was to lose it over “The Path to 9/11.”

Democrats, it’s simple. Denounce this letter, or declare yourselves in favor of government threats against networks based on the content of free speech.

UPDATE: OK, I swear I didn’t read Allah’s take on this before I posted:

Wonderful network you’ve got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.

. . . .

My only question is this: was that letter typed, or did they use letters cut out from magazines?

But it’s mighty similar (if funnier), isn’t it?

ABC has apparently agreed to edit “The Path to 9/11” in response to a complaint from former President Bill Clinton. Hot Air has the details. According to reports, the edit alters the controversial scene in which Sandy Berger refuses to give the CIA authority to kill bin Laden. Also, the film will now be billed as based only “in part” on the 9/11 Commission Report.

A few points are in order.

First, if the changes make the film more historically accurate, that’s a good thing.

I don’t know whether that is the case or not.

Despite what some lefty bloggers think, I haven’t seen the film, so I must rely on descriptions from people who have, like my guest blogger Justin Levine.

From everything I’ve read, it appears that the particular scene probably didn’t occur exactly as depicted in the film. The scene was probably overdramatized and made into a composite of various failures.

But while Clinton’s failure should not be overstated, neither should it be understated.

For example, I see that a lot of commenters here have been making the argument: the movie is incorrect because it is inconsistent with what Dick Clarke has said. Allow me a quick mordant chuckle or four. OK, I’m done.

You see, Clarke’s credibility is toast, as I have explained before, many, many times. If Dick Clarke told me my name is Patrick Frey, I’d check my ID to make sure.

Also, while the particular scene in the movie may not have happened in the particular way the movie depicted (something that should not be excused), let’s not pretend that the Clinton Administration didn’t pass up chances to take out Bin Laden. Clinton’s folks passed on a specific plan to capture Bin Laden that had been approved at high levels, only to be scuttled by Cabinet officials worried, among other things, about killing innocent civilians, and about recriminations if Bin Laden were killed.

Some relevant details on that point are in the extended entry.

(more…)

The L.A. Times is running a week-long series in which a reporter follows around a public defender in Norwalk. Part One is here, as are links to the other installments. So far, as you would expect, the series is extremely sympathetic to the public defender — whom I don’t know, and who sounds like a very competent lawyer.

It’s an interesting series. And I have no problem with praising a good public defender. I have said before that public defenders are often some of the best and most effective lawyers I know.

If I have one quarrel with the series, it’s this:

The next time a reporter from the L.A. Times follows around a prosecutor and posts day after day of favorable articles about him — you let me know.

So Calderon has finally been declared the winner of Mexico’s election — but ObraGore is going to set up a parallel government:

Nevertheless, supporters of losing leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador continued their street protests. The former Mexico City mayor said he would not concede defeat and vowed to set up a parallel government.

Then he plans to grow a beard and a paunch, and create a movie called “An Inconvenient Truth: I Really Won!”

UPDATE: On a serious note, Dafydd ab Hugh sees in ObraGore’s actions the seeds of a possible civil war.