The latest of Dean Barnett's patented FAQs lists is devoted to The Path To 9/11. Here are just a couple of great observations that Dean makes:

6) What about this Democratic stunt making a veiled threat to look into Disney’s broadcast license if ABC shows the film?

Shameless. Pathetic. And hilarious. Really, do you think the Democrats in Congress want to have hearings to determine just what the Clinton administration did and did not do to fight terror? How many news cycles would that take? The Senate Democrats go through multiple contortions very day pretending that they’re just as angry as their blogging base. This letter represents just another despicable day at the office for them. More’s the pity.

7) Why are the bloggers in such a lather about this movie?

You got me with that one. It’s not because they love Clinton, and lord knows they didn’t show the same appetite for accuracy where the Rathergate documents were concerned.

Their passion is especially odd since lately, the Daily Kos and the other lefty blogs have shown good message discipline and known when to starve a story of oxygen. For instance, when Paul Hackett called the son of a Holocaust survivor an Unterfuhrer, the Daily Kos didn’t make a peep to defend its heartthrob. But today, the Daily Kos front page is enflamed with rage at the Mouse. If the Democrats could have kept quiet, this movie would have come and gone with all the fanfare of a typical weekly movie. But having become a political football, a lot more people are talking about it than otherwise would be the case. And therefore, a lot more people are talking about the Democrats’ record on terrorism, which isn’t a very good thing for the Democrats.

I made a similar observation early--very, very early this morning--after finishing editing BWIR:

In any case, given that the beginning of September is traditionally when people start paying attention to politics again, this is not an auspicious start to the left's campaign season. And it all could have been avoided by simply letting the show air quietly--or at least not going to the mattresses over it.

And as Glenn Reynolds writes, this could have further implications for the left:

By making a big noise over this film, the Clinton people are implicitly disavowing the "pass" they've enjoyed, and in the process inviting more, rather than less, scrutiny of that Administration's antiterror record, which strikes me as very unwise, politically.

Allah drops a flashlight down the Memory Hole, here.

Update: More from Allah:

if I had to guess, I’d guess that the only point of this browbeating at this point is as a demonstration of raw political power. Either that, or it’s an exercise in Lakoffian “branding,” whereby they’re finally going to show America that they too can demand unconditional surrender from an enemy. Just like Harry Truman. Except with Mickey Mouse in place of Hirohito.

As I wrote (not coincidentally) back in the fall of 2004, for a party of pacifists, "Democrats can fight long, hard, and dirty when they want to. If they actually chose to defend America itself against its enemies with as much force as they deploy during election-time, they would never have to rely on such tactics in the first place."