Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical to former Democrat President Bill Clinton and his top aides.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as "a work of fiction."
Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC's corporate partent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to "cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program."
ABC responds that the movie is a "dramatization, not a documentary."
Sound familiar? It's the same thing that was said in response to criticism about Michael Moore's false and defamaory Fahrenheit 9/11.
Yet Democrats were delighted when Moore's deceptive "documentary" was unleashed in an election year. Remember the snide smiles pasted on the faces of former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and his cohorts as they emerged from screening Moore's movie? Jonah Goldberg reminds us that Democrats embraced Michael Moore's movie at the highest levels. Daschle hugged Moore at the premiere. Carter invited him to sit with him at the convention. Now he wonders, "Are they claiming that F9/11 is more accurate than the ABC miniseries? If so, I'd like to hear them say it."
So would I.
But for now, we have to endure the whining of Clintonistas, such as Sandy Burglar and Madeline Notsobright, who have their collective panties in a bunch about a few scences that weren't to their liking. Reportedly, the creators of The Path to 9/11 were meticulous in their research, using numerous source documents and consulting closely with former 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Keane (unsurprisingly Richard Ben-Veniste is complaining--it's anybody's guess when Jamie Gore Lick will unload) in an effort to fairly and accurately portray events in the run-up to the terror attacks of that day. While the dramatization contains some fictional characters and situations, most critics indicate that it is a pretty clear historical account--free of political spin, politically correct whitewashing and partisan wrangling, where neither the current nor former administrations are spared from criticism.
On the other hand, Michael Moore completely fabricated stuff in his piece of sh...er...propaganda. And Democrats (and Jihadis) LOVED it.
Christopher Hitchens, leftist columnist for Slate and Vanity Fair, reviewed Farenheit 9/11. Here's a sample of his devastating critique:To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Democrats are all for freedom of speech when it libels Republicans. But try to accurately portray historical events and they throw a tantrum--even to the point of lobbying ABC to cancel it! What a bunch of frickin' hypocrites.
UPDATE:
Hugh Hewitt observes:
In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.
It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.
Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.
5 comments:
Democrats love Michael Moore?? Interesting...
All the democrats I've talked with think he's alright, but definitely not amazing.
Have you met many democrats that talk highly of Michael Moore?
False and defamatory Farenheit 911? Are you on crack? If you're not, you should be.
Don't take my word for it. Read the link to the pdf (59 Deceipts in Farenhiet 911) and Christopher Hitchens' review. As I pointed out--Hitchens is a leftist who has no affinity for the Bush Administration. His is a rather long review that, coupled with the pdf that shows how sloppy Moore is with his "facts," reveals a fatally flawed movie. Indeed, Hitchens has nothing but contempt for Moore's propaganda.
Sad to see that you apparently swallowed that crap whole. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering some of the views you've espoused here. I just expected a little more thoughtfulness from you. Now I just think you need get some fresh air--the echo chamber is clouding your thinking.
Anonymous, I don't know any honest, fair-minded liberals who celebrate Moore anymore. Most liberals I know smile sheepishly when he's brought up. They are embarrased by him. The only ones that think he's great now are the most hard-core whack jobs/Bush-haters...and, evidently, Tom. Even the Democrat politicians bailed on him once they realized his flick wasn't going to win the election for them.
Have you seen Farenheit 911? Or are you just basing all your information on articles you come across on the internet?
OK OK ... the 'on crack' comment was harsh.
Yes. I know Moore likes to bend the ol' truth to the left through the prism of 'documentary' ... sort of like Rush Limbaugh bends to the right in the name of radio 'infotainment'.
One thing that is unilaterally agreed upon by the video evidence is that Bush sat there with his thumb up his arse in front of a class full of kids after the second plane hit. So whether Farenheit 911 is a defamatory pile of dreck or not, it does have SOME undeniable truth in it.
As for me hating Bush, I don't hate him ... I LOVE him. He's the funniest president I've EVER seen. Have you SEEN the Tenessee proverb "... fooled me once ... shame on .... shame on you ... fool me twice ... uh fool me, you can't fool me again," quote? Or the "OB-GYN's practice their ... their love on women across this country." I mean you MUST have. That's gold, Jerry, gold!
Seriously, you can defend him until you're blue in the face, but anyway you slice it, he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer as is well documented. It's a farce that he was elected. And having a president of a country that large and powerful really ought to be an intelligent man, in my view. I mean honestly, he called Prime Minister Chretien, Prime Minister Poutine. Say what you like about Canada, it is a MONSTER trade partner for the US and it is right next store, so you know, it might be good to know the leader's name, don't you think?
Oh and, before you launch into the "he's just not a good orator" tirade that is commonly trotted out by those who desperately want to believe he's smart just because he's Republican, you need only watch him speak without any notes (nevermind how badly he butchers what's been writen for him). It's not just his formal speeches or formal oral addresses, it's his ability to speak 'to the people'. Besides, being a leader REQUIRES you to speak effectively and is a direct reflection of your interpersonal and relationship skills and intellect.
Now before you lump me, as you often do, into the leftist league of doom, I would say that Jean Chretien, the very person Bush called Poutine, has an abysmal ability to speak, in English. He often looks equally foolish. I suppose, though, that English as a second language makes for somewhat of an excuse.
Also, before you start thinking I favour Democratic or Liberal Politicians over Republican or Conservative politicians, I must point out that politicians are, as a rule, an unsavoury lot anyway. Plato espoused a Philosopher King because, as he rightly pointed out, anybody who SHOULD be in office would never WANT to be in office, therefore, you'd need to drag him in and force him to serve his duty. The very job requires an appetite for filth.
Post a Comment