A Friday Night Roundup

Seems Clinton would be smarter to let this lie than invite more scrutiny: That would be the opinion of many, including Instapundit who reports that the Clintonistas are trying mightily to force a do-over on ABC’s The Path to 9/11. This is an interesting problem. Supposedly the Clintons are concerned that they come off as a bit negligent in the 1990’s (!)…if they can’t get an edit to a more comfortable “truth” their only recourse will be do send the usual talking heads out to discredit the entire film. Which will be difficult, and since from what I have read the film is not exactly a love song George W. Bush (it shows both president’s making mistakes), it would put the Clintonistas in an odd position of trying to say, “all the negatives about US are untrue…but those negatives about Bush…those are okay. Yeah, they screwed up a lot, but we didn’t!” Or something.

Doesn’t it seem to you that the grown-up, mature and statesmanlike thing to do would be to say, “every president makes mistakes,” and move on? Oh…but that would first admit that a Clinton is capable of being less-than-perfect, and it would also admit that GW Bush is simply a man in a difficult job. Talk about destroying narratives! No…they can’t and won’t make that simple statement. One honest line like that would undo all these years of propaganda.

Limbaugh would have some credibility on this since one of the producers of the movie is talking to him. He saw the film and describes the scenes that are upsetting the Clintons. You’ll want to read it all. The film has lots of reviewers glowing, including the very credible Michael Barone, and there are DVD’s out there that reviewers can use to take issue with any “edits” – so it might be smarter for the Clinton folks to just pipe down and let the thing play.

Possibly the Clintonistas are simply not used to not being able to control something media-related. They and their pals have pretty much “owned” history for a while, now.

Ace writes: Listen closely for the roar of millions of liberals compaining of Clinton’s thuggish attempt to chill the free speech rights of artists. Can you hear it?

Well, no, of course not. Hugh Hewitt has more. As does Steve Spruiell. Also, read all of Patterico’s post which is chock-full of details.

Workers quit because Dems won’t pay existing minimum wage? Ed Morrissey has the story, and he writes: Their rationalization for breaking the law is laughable. Their contractor, Grassroots Campaigns, argues that special rules apply to canvassers that allow them to pay commission-based compensation. GC also acknowledges that they do not pay for employee time spent during orientation, claiming another exemption. Neither exist, and even if they did, Democrats still would need to explain why they would support any system that paid $56 in wages for 45 hours of work.

I won’t hold my breath waiting for an explanation – would you?

Pajamas Media has some more news about WMD’s in Iraq and wonders why it’s so difficult to come by/report or get this information disseminated.

David Limbaugh takes the gloves off and simply calls the Democrats liars, damn liars and hypocrites (H/T Lorie):They claim Bush asserted a connection between Saddam and 9/11, when he explicitly said otherwise. He said Saddam had close ties to terrorists, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which is undeniably true and which Democrats also persist in falsely denying. Indeed, Iraq was on Clinton’s watch list of terrorist nations. And so forth.

Hezbollah is nearer than you think: In VENEZUELA, actually. That’s what Gateway Pundit is reporting. It’s not “all the way over there, somewhere,” anymore. Gateway also has some news on rare criticism of Jimmy Carter, which is worth reading.

Speaking of Islamists, some Muslims leaders are becrying America’s Islamophobia since 9/11. It’s a legitimate worry, I guess, although I can’t help but notice that Americans are not messing with Mosques or harrassing Muslims – if we were, surely it would be in the news. I know there are plenty of decent Muslims out there, but if they want to blame someone for “Islamophobia” (I’d call it Islamofascistphobia), they should perhaps look to their co-religionists who are the ones responsible for making people feel nervous about with whom they might be flying, etc, or whether in a few years they might be forced to convert or die.

If you want to fix how you are perceived, start with those in the news who are creating all those “negative” perceptions…that’s alls I’m saying.

Classical Values has more touching on this.