VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED

Viewer discretion is advised

By Michelle Malkin

TS at Seixon (hat tip: Allah) has helpfully crafted a TV slate for ABC to "insert into every scene the champions of free speech nutroots or poor Bill Clinton objects [to] (because, from the looks of this massive jihad they are waging , it appears ABC will be using this slate quite a bit):"

The way things are going, it looks like other networks should prepare similar slates for themselves.

Check out our related Vent today on Democrat Party dementia and 9-11 deniers.

What does ABC stand for? Marooned in Marin quips:

ABC Stands for "Altered By Clinton"

LETTER FROM ARI FLEISCHER TO JIMMY CARTER

The following is a letter from Ari Fleischer to former President Jimmy Carter relating to Carter’s interview with Der Spiegel:

August 21, 2006

The Honorable Jimmy Carter
The Carter Center
453 Freedom Parkway
Atlanta, Georgia 30307

Dear Mr. President:

I just read the transcript of your interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel, in which you accuse Israel of launching an “unjustified attack on Lebanon.”

Even after the interviewer reminded you that Israel was the first to get attacked, you charged Israel with lacking “any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon.”

As someone who served in the White House as a spokesman for a President, I am reluctant to criticize another President, but in this instance my conscience compels me to do so.

Mr. President, your words are music to Hezbollah’s ears and your message is a blow to long-term peace.

Just as you underestimated the threat of the Soviet Union in the 1970s, you underestimate the threat of radical Islam today. Your condemnation of Israel, the victim, only encourages Hezbollah, the attacker, to bide its time and attack again.

Ahmed Barakat, a member of Hezbollah’s central council, last week told the Qatari newspaper as-Watan that “Today Arab and Muslim society is reasonably certain that the defeat of Israel is possible and that the countdown to the disappearance of the Zionist entity in the region has begun. The triumph of the resistance is the beginning of the death of the Israeli enemy.”

I was raised a Democrat but I changed parties in 1982 because I believed your policies and the nuclear freeze movement invited increased Soviet militarism and adventurism. President Reagan’s military build-up and credible threat of the use of force helped bring about the demise of Communism and brought freedom and a better life to hundreds of millions in Central and Eastern Europe. It also secured a lasting peace.

I’m sorry to see you articulate about Hezbollah and its aggression the same weak world-view that encouraged Soviet aggression. As Ronald Reagan showed us, peace through strength is the only formulation understood by those bent on destruction.

I understand your longing for peace and your fond hope that Hezbollah can be reasoned with. However, when you call Israel’s defense “an attack”, when you call what is justified “unjustified”, and when you call morality immoral, I conclude that the pro-defense, strong foreign policy lessons of the 70s and 80s remain unacceptable to you. Also, when you criticize Israel for targeting so-called “civilian” areas in Beirut and other areas where Hezbollah hides its operations, the result would be – if Israel listened to you – the creation of safe havens from which more violence and rocket attacks would be planned and launched.

Sadly, Hezbollah today is planning its next war. For the sake of peace, Israel deserves your praise, not your condemnation.

Sincerely,
L. Ari Fleischer

IT LOOKS LIKE ABC IS GOING TO CAVE

What drama!

ABC has a five-hour miniseries coming up titled "The Path to 9/11." The first episode airs this coming Sunday night at 8:00 p.m. Eastern. This docu-drama is causing quite a stir in Washington ... and especially in the Clinton camp.

The problem, you see, is that in this movie the Clinton Administration is portrayed as treating Islamic terrorism as nothing more than a law enforcement problem. There is one scene in the move where Intelligence officials are discussing an attempt to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. The Clinton administration is refusing to authorize the action. Permission denied. The Clinton aide says that the problem is that Clinton views terrorism as largely a law enforcement problem. The intelligence official asks "How do you win a law and orderly war?" The aide responds "You don't."

You can sputter and spin all you want about President Bush and his handling of the war on Islamic fascism, you cannot deny that since 9/11 he has been dedicated to the cause of crushing Islamic terrorism over there before they bring it back over here. Sounds like a good plan to me.

Similarly -- there is no way in hell that any reasonable man can argue that the Clinton administration was dedicated to crushing Islamic terrorism. Clinton did indeed treat it like a law enforcement program. After the first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 Clinton did not even bother to visit New York City to view the damage, talk to survivors and the families of those who lost their lives, or meet with NYC officials and first responders.

And what of the attack on the U.S. Cole? This was an attack on a U.S. Navy warship. Clinton was the Commander in Chief. The response? At best, lob a few cruise missiles. That's it. Nothing more.

So ... now the battle is joined. ABC has this miniseries ready to run. The producers say that it's largely based on the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as interviews with the people involved. Apparently the miniseries shows Clinton to be relatively unconcerned about terrorism, and not dedicated to the cause of bringing in bin Laden.

Will the Democrat pressure work? My guess is that it will, at least in part. ABC is already issuing statements to the effect that "The editing process is not yet complete." The Los Angeles Times is reporting that changes were made in the program this week after the Clintonistas started howling. Specifically targeted, according to the Times, was the scene where Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declines to give an order to kill bin Laden.

By the way ... this really makes you wonder just what documents Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives, doesn't it?

Democrats sent a letter to Robert Iger, the President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, the owner of ABC. That letter contained this interesting paragraph:

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."

Now what is this paragraph really saying? Can you read between the lines? Here ... let me rewrite the paragraph by adding a few words. Perhaps it will be clearer to you.

"The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airways in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. The licenses granted to the television stations you own and operate are not permanent. They are periodically subject to renewal. You may wish to remember this fact, and consider the probability that by the time those licenses come up for renewal the Democrats may be in control of both houses of Congress, and the wife of the man your miniseries defames may well be the President of the United States"

Get the message?

A NEW AL QAEDA VIDEO.....

By Michelle Malkin

So you think you can jihad?

...offers a timely reminder of the Saudi connection to 9/11 and urges Muslims to kill Americans in Iraq:

The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."

The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.

The footage also showed hand-to-hand combat practice between people who wore masks over their heads.

The television station also broadcast a recording attributed to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, in which he said he was sure of victory against US-led forces in the country.

The recording was posted on an Islamist Internet site as well, but its authenticity could not be immediately established.

In the Internet statement, Muhajer also urged Sunni Muslims to kill at least one US citizen within the next two weeks.

"Oh followers of (Taliban leader) Mullah Mohammed Omar, oh sons of (Al-Qaeda leader) Osama bin Laden, oh disciples of (slain Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader) Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi ... I urge each of you to kill at least one American within a period not exceeding 15 days," Muhajer said.

But if you convert and surrender, you know, everything will be hunky-dory.

***

Stay tuned to Hot Air. Allah's got a mega-post and every breaking detail.

More background at Jawa Report and from Laura Mansfield.

There's also a new audio tape out from Zarqawi's successor in Iraq.

SHIFTING WINDS FOR GOP?

According to this article, the Washington Times’ Donald Lambro seems to think that GOP chances are brightening.

Two months before Election Day, some things were happening in the political environment that showed how quickly the tide can turn in the rough and tumble of American elections.
Earlier this week, Chevron’s announcement of major new oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, perhaps the biggest in a generation, which could yield 400,000 barrels per day, had a positive impact on the oil markets. Oil and gas prices were already falling significantly as we entered Labor Day weekend, the combined result of reduced fears of supply interruptions in global markets, especially in the Gulf, and a fall-off in U.S. gasoline demand as the summer vacation driving season came to a close.
As this is written, the national average price of gas at the pump was $2.70 a gallon and falling, while oil had dropped from $77 a barrel to $69 or less. Further price reductions will likely ease the squeeze on consumer budgets at a time when Republicans need all the good news they can get.

In other words, as I said here, events drive elections as much as policies. Dropping oil prices will take away one of the Democrats’ favorite whipping boys. Amy Klobuchar has made a big deal of attacking “Big Oil and the Big Pharmaceuticals”. With gas prices already having dropped half a dollar this month here in Minnesota, and with prices being forecast to drop even further, it’s sure to take the sting out of the Democrats’ rants.

Usually cautious elections tracker Charlie Cook summed up the GOP’s future this way over Labor Day weekend: If “the political climate remains as it is today, a very big ‘if’, Republicans will likely lose the House and their dominance of the nation’s governorships but hang on to the Senate by a thread.”
But interviews with key Democrats advising all levels of their party’s campaign apparatus and with Republican officials suggest the “big if” Mr. Cook worries about is the wild card in all this that could give the GOP a winning hand. Maybe not enough to avoid losses in the House and Senate and among the governorships, but possibly enough to keep both chambers in Republican control.

Mr. Cook is a dilligent political forecaster but he isn’t paying enough attention to the Right Blogosphere. If he were, he’d know that the GOP base is fired up in keeping the levers of power out of Democrats’ hands. He’d also know that Republicans are talking about national security and enforecement first immigration whenever possible. In other words, he hasn’t noticed that “the political climate” has already changed from the climate he perceives.

Republican campaign officials tell me if Democrats are leading in the generic polls by 6 points or so, they feel confident they can repel the assault on the House. “We look at the individual races and we find in our polling data that the Republicans are in very good positions,” said Carl Forti, chief spokesman for the NRCC. “Republicans will be in the majority in the next Congress,” he told me.

Forecasters like Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg are basing their predictions on 2004 results and immediately assume that these incumbents are in trouble because they think this is a difficult year for Republicans based on President Bush’s low poll ratings. The other thing that’s worth noting is that the generic ballot is useless. PERIOD.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST: HOW BLOGGERS MARK 9/11

By Michelle Malkin

On the left, DU'ers prepare a mass Google-bombing campaign against ABC's 9/11 docu-drama, "The Path to 9/11," because of its critical look at the Clinton years:

To counteract the effects the ABC 9-11 movie could have on the midterm elections, I recommend this course of action:

The night of, and the morning after, people will be hitting the internet looking for information on the events as depicted in this movie.

Our biggest opportunity will be to have nearly identical blog posts waiting, then submit them to be found internet wide the morning after the movie. Google and Technorati will pick up on these posts quickly. We can make these entries dominate the first several pages of the search engines.

MAKE SURE THE POST TITLE HAS THE TITLE OF THE MOVIE IN IT!

Get every Democratic friendly blog on board as possible... you e-mail the ones you know, they'll e-mail the ones they know, etc. Make SURE these blogs are on the Technorati network and have also been submitted to Google's blog search.

For one day, change the title of your blog to the title of the movie.

Agree on a clear, detailed, and sourced body of information -- I've seen several examples on DU lately disputing what is in the movie. Media Matters has one. One was posted today on DU by Richard Clarke.

Everyone post it. Right after the movie is over or the next morning at the latest.

MAKE SURE THE POST TITLE HAS THE TITLE OF THE MOVIE IN IT!

On the right, Dale Roe organizes 2,996 bloggers to honor the memory of each and every one of the innocent men, women, and children murdered five years ago by jihadi hijackers:

I think it's a rather striking contrast.