Details on President Bush's interview with Katie Couric..
Quote from the interview, courtesy of Salon.com ... and yet another example of why the man's handlers hardly ever let him speak extemporaneously:

"George W. Bush, responding to Katie Couric's question on what the United States has learned from interrogating high-value terrorism suspects: "Well, for example -- there's a -- we -- we uncovered a -- a potential anthrax attack on the United States. Or the fact that -- Khalid Sheik Mohammed had got somebody to -- to line up people to fly airlines, to -- to crash airlines on, I think, the West Coast or somewhere in America. And these would be Southeast Asians. In other words, we've uncovered cells."

Watching the man attempt to think out loud is a painful experience.

---

The Republican Fahrenheit 9/11: I mentioned ABC's The Path to 9/11 documentary a couple of days ago. (The movie is being billed as "an objective telling of the events of 9/11.") In the interim, it seems that everyone who's ever thought about voting Democrat has condemned it, including President Clinton and his former staffers. Since ABC refused to provide copies to those portrayed in the film, only a few people who are complaining have actually seen the darn thing. But those who are knowledgeable report several concerns, including that it was produced by a right wing ideologue and contains depictions of multiple events that never actually happened. An FBI agent consulting on the project even quit halfway through because he felt producers were just making things up.

In response to the controversy, ABC is defending the film but will make minor changes and Scholastic is pulling their Path companion guide for schools, saying the documentary doesn't meet their standards for objectivity. (quixotickitten points out that, amusingly, they're replacing the Path guide with one on media literacy. BWAH!)

The flick's blog is trying a little revisionist history of its own, insisting the movie's a "docudrama" and not (as previously billed,) an "objective telling". But the blog also makes a valid point: if one hasn't watched the movie, they're not qualified to criticize it.

This NYTimes (their reviewer did see it,) review is probably the most objective that I've seen. The Denver Post did a decent job, too.

It is important to note that while Clinton might like to, he can't change history. As the NYTimes explains, the 9/11 Commission concluded that dealing with the Lewinsky scandal distracted him from focusing on Bin Laden after the Declaration of Jihad was made in 1996. While the inexplicable Republican obsession with the former President's sex life was a clear secondary cause, the buck stops at the Oval Office.

As it was in 2004, the primary concern on American minds during this election year is which party's policies are best suited to defend us. I'd be curious to see if those who are now condemning Path were similarly outraged about the release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm guessing the answer would be no.


Edit: Glenn Greenwald: Bush supporters condemn fictionalized political mini-series -- in 2003
misfitina provided a great link to a video of Gregg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher discussing the movie on MSNBC.