[QUOTE=Apos]
However, it was written by an avowed conservative activist, directed by a guy with links to a conservative “take back hollywood for christ” group, quietly referred to as “untitled history project,” and screened only to conservatives: obviously someone felt there was something about it they would like.
[/QUOTE]
Are we supposed to believe all of that without citation?
Cite that Nowrasteh is a “conservative activist”?
Cite that the director actually has links to that group other than his father being in it?
Cite that it was “quietly” referred to as “untitled history project”-- you do know that movies often remain untitled until late in the game, right?
Cite that it was only screened to conservatives?
BTW, that NYT reviewer of the film said it spread the blame around evenly, and that Bush was not portrayed in a favorable light either. What I’m not buying is that this is some conservative conspiracy.
I don’t read the above as a ‘threat’ so much as a remonstration that attempts to cloak itself in additional gravitas by citing the original agreement between government and broadcast TV. To me, it seems roughly analagous to a politician who protests religious intrusion into government by observing that the Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. They might point out that churches have benefited from this arrangement with their tax-exempt status, but this observation doesn’t necessarily imply a threat to revoke said status if the churches don’t mind their place.
That said, I do think the above passage was constructed somewhat clumsily, and I can see how its message could be read both ways. By mentioning the network’s free broadcast license up front like that, the letter does sort of give the impression that its authors are subtly pointing out who holds the purse strings in the arrangement. If that was indeed the intent, I definitely think it was inappropriate to say the least.
Unfortunately, I also find that my own political leanings are hopelessly outweighed by my inability to pass up a golden setup such as the above quoted passage. Therefore, I must point out that the Senate Democratic Leadership apparently doesn’t know the meaning of the word ‘principle.’
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Are we supposed to believe all of that without citation?
Cite that Nowrasteh is a “conservative activist”?..
[/quote]
Depends on how closely you are willing to parse “activist”. Being described in glowing terms by Mount Rush seems a pretty good start. My perusal indicates he is at least well known in such illustrious circles as NewsMax, Front Page, etc. Of course, none of that is “activist” unless you say it is. Rotten tomato, rotten tomahto.
Pretty much asked and answered, save for that trap door you left, “only”. Its preferred disbursement to conservative pundits ain’t enough for you, we got to prove they took steps to keep it out of the hands of liberal pundits?
Again, creative parsing could eventually construe this as “educational endeavor.”
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Depends on how closely you are willing to parse “activist”. Being described in glowing terms by Mount Rush seems a pretty good start. My perusal indicates he is at least well known in such illustrious circles as NewsMax, Front Page, etc. Of course, none of that is “activist” unless you say it is. Rotten tomato, rotten tomahto.
[/quote]
I believe he’s a self-described libertarian. From what I’ve read he’s friends with Rush, but then Bill Maher is friends with Ann Coulter so where does that get us?
My trap door? I quoted Apos exactly-- that was his choice of wording, not mine. The film was given to a group of Democrats for previewing, too. How do you think Richard Ben-Veniste got to see it?
Well, if it was a conspiracy, it wasn’t a very good one considering the number of conservative pundits saying they should not have made up quotes and events. I’m sure you won’t need a cite for that-- ThinkProgress is touting it so you must’ve seen it already.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think they’re purpose was to make money. Don’t be fooled by the philanthropic guise of “no commercial interruptions”. It looks like they wanted to drum up the drama by showing our government asleep at the switch-- and that means both Clinton and Bush. If Clinton gets more air time (and I don’t know that he does), that’s probably because he was in office longer in the pre-9/11 days. We Americans have short memories, and I doubt anyone will remember this film in November.
[/QUOTE]
Previewing the movie only to right-wingers assist them in making money how?
Perhaps they think they can help elect a more business friendly congress. Perhaps they believe Rummy and Cheney and think Democrats are just this side of traitors.
Bet they don’t show Clarke and Clinton working to stop the Millennium plot.
I don’t think the amount of air time has anything to do with it. They could make air time linear with real time, or they can devote more time to events closer to 9/11. Both are valid choices. It’s the incident they leave out and put in (and make up) which count.
You may be right about people not remembering in November. Enough people are now convinced the Republicans lie that the Democrats loud protests may enforce this view. But lies are still lies.
Further to the “conservative activist” comment, it’s really the “activist” part that Im interested in. If you want to call the guy a conservative, fine. But I don’t know how to parse the word “activist” in a way that simply means other conservatives like him. He needn’t be a conservative Cindy Sheehan, but give me something a bit more than: he’s liked in conservative circles.
So it was sheer coincidence that he was chosen to screenwrite? Could as easily have been Noam Chomsky? And you sure you want these kinds of people grabbing “libertarian” for cover?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
So it was sheer coincidence that he was chosen to screenwrite? Could as easily have been Noam Chomsky? And you sure you want these kinds of people grabbing “libertarian” for cover?
[/QUOTE]
Was he chosen, or did he write the script and sell it? I honestly don’t know, but isn’t that the way it usually works?
I really don’t know much about the guy or the history of this film. If **Apos **has cites for all his assertions, fine. I’m not saying he’s wrong-- I think at least one of them is incorrect, but there’s a lot of accusations floating around right now, and I’m sure not all of it’s true. You know, like the meme about it only having been previewed to conservatives. How many times has that been posted on this message board?
I said correct me if I’m wrong, (and you did on only) but the deference and care to conservative punditry: even caring about hyping the things to pundits at all: that doesn’t seem odd? How about sending reassuring emails out to conservative pundits telling them not to worry, the changes still bash clinton and will be mostly unchanged? Why are they reassuring them of anything?
As for activist, well, your careful parsing of of words to avoid any hint of exagerration might be worthwhile if it wasn’t your constant device of sidestepping the larger issue.
Somehow, Cyrus Nowrasteh also ended up on a panel for “Rebels With a Cause: How Conservatives Can Lead Hollywood’s Next Paradigm Shift,” at the Liberty Film Festival, the highly non-partisan get together of people picked at random off the streets.
My trap door? I quoted Apos exactly-- that was his choice of wording, not mine. The film was given to a group of Democrats for previewing, too. How do you think Richard Ben-Veniste got to see it?
[/QUOTE]
It was screened in late August? by the National Press Club, not an unusual event for this kind of thing. Ben-Veniste, a member of the 9/11 Commision, after viewing it in that venue, brought up his objections to the blatant fictionalization of his Commision’s report.
I’m not sure that the video at that time was given to “a group of Democrats” for viewing. Any help here?
Anybody got any solid stuff about the financing? Did Disney decide to piss away upwards of $30 million (not counting the profits surrendered by eschewing commercials)? Who made this extraordinarily generous decision? Are we to believe they were motivated solely by a vigorous sense of civic virtue and patriotism? From whence the courage to face up to the Democrat’s crushing power?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Anybody got any solid stuff about the financing?
[/QUOTE]
Howard Dean has asked ABC to reveal “who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda.”
It’ll probably turn out to be bin Laden, or Tom DeLay, or some such.
You’re missing the point of your own quotes. Those quotes support the claim that none of the decsions he made were influnced by the Lewinski scandal-- ie, no Wag the Dog. That’s entirely different from being “distracted”, which simply means he had to spend a goodly amount of time on his impeachment.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Look, none of us has seen this film. So what if they have one fucking scene of Clinton dealing with the Lewinski issues. The “insinuation” is in the mind of Clinton, and the response in his letter talks about whether he based any of his decisions on the political consequences, which is another matter entirely. Does the film have Clinton telling anyone to drum up some terrorism news so that the Lewinski scandal gets less press? I don’t think so.
[/QUOTE]
No, that’s not the point. The point is that, according to the New York Times reviewer, the film portrays Clinton as not paying the necessary amount of attention to OBL and/or terrorism because he was too focused on the Lewinsky scandal.
The simple fact is that that’s entirely untrue. The fact that he spent time – any amount of time, be it a little or a lot – dealing with the Lewinsky mess, does not in any way mean he didn’t take the time to pay attention to terrorism, too. It’s got nothing to do with wagging the dog.
“As the terrorist threat mounts, one of the more jarring moments [in the film] is a real-life clip of President Bill Clinton addressing the nation about Monica Lewinsky.” IOW – he wasn’t paying attention to the rising threat of terrorism because he was too busy lying to the nation about a blow job. And of course had he paid more attention to OBL, it wouldn’t have been left in Bush’s unsuspecting hands come 9/11/2001 dontchaknow.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Cite that it was “quietly” referred to as “untitled history project”-- you do know that movies often remain untitled until late in the game, right?
[/QUOTE]
This Fox News story from May, 2005 might be of interest to you; it’s titled, “Secret 9/11 Miniseries Planned”
At least back then they were apparently more honest about its content being a fictionalized “Soap Opera” than they are now that they’re ready to unleash it on an all-too-gullible public.
