Still More Swill From ABC

Ouch. It seems I've overestimated our President again (though never voted for him).

 

Oh, I get it. When a movie portrays the Clinton administration in an unflattering light, it's inaccurate, false, exagggerated and made up. When the same movie portrays the Bush administration in an unflattering light, it's completely, 100 percent accurate.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

And in what way did the movie portray the Bush administration in an unflattering light? I mean, hondo, they couldn;t have them stop the attacks, although I'm sure that occurred to Rush's pal, the writer, and to the Dominionist loon director. Condi Rice is there talking about how deeply, deeply concerned the president is about the facts in the PDB. As we have noited above, that was, ah, not really the case.

 

The Sept. 4 meeting between Condi, Dick Clarke and other cabinet members quotes Condi as saying "the president is tired of swatting at flies" and something along the lines of how he wants OBL to be taken care of. FACT: That meeting took place in March 2001.

 

That's not what I wrote, and you know it. I asked you if the movie made anything up that portrayed the Bushies unfavorably, as it did with Sandy Berger.

I watched it, however, and saw the actress playing Condi Rice telling staffers that the president "wanted immediate action" and "wants to get in front of this" concerning the 8/6/01 PDB. The real Condi, you might recall, told the 9/11 commission that the PDB was nothing more than a "historical" document that was not designed to be acted on.

But no, I wouldn't say that the descrepancy between the truth and the movie scene portrays the Bushies in a negative light.

 

In fact, it did just the opposite of that. It made Bush look good by Condi saying the president wanted to deal with OBL and wanted to "stop swatting at flies." The Sept. 4 meeting did take place but Condi's now somewhat infamous statement wasn't said at that meeting. The March meeting is where Condi said Bush was tired of "swatting at flies." (That statement in its very self is quite damning considering that fucking "fly" had just got 2 Yemenis to blow a hole in the USS Cole, coordinated the 1998 US Embassy bombings that killed hundreds, blew up the Khobar Towers in SA in 1996, financed the training of Islamic militants who would bring down US choppers and kill 18 marines in Somalia in 1993, etc., etc., etc.) Anyway, by Condi actually telling the 9/11 Commission the PDB was nothing more than "historical information" shows that she didn't give much shit for it. Which probably means the president didn't either. Which means that entire Sept. 4 meeting portrayed in the movie was filled with the fabrication that Bush gave far more shit about OBL than he actually did.

Can anyone conclude or at least guess why the producers would make the Sept. 4 meeting more of a big deal than it was? Why didn't they just go by the March 2001 meeting? Were there positive elements, in terms of what Bush and his cabinet were doing to go after OBL and AQ, in both meetings and the producers just decided to put it all in one meeting and make the administration appear more competant and proactive?

 

I suppose we could just go straight to the horse's mouth. But it won't fit in with your liberal religious tenets, so I'm sure you'll just call him a liar.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008958

 

I enjoyed the feigned surprise in that piece. Shocking that the media would try to figure out why a writer and director would so blatantly fabricate entire scenes in a movie based on the worst attack on this country. Shocking. Damn media.

 

In other words, you concede the point. Let me know when you want to actually have a mature discussion. Your next one will be your first.

 

Actions always speek louder than words.

 

You have to be kidding. "Won't fit in with your liberal religious tenets." What are you doing, playing wingnut Mad Libs or something?
The writer -- the friend of Rush Limbaugh, the conservative activist -- says he was misused? I'm shocked. This has been my favorite part of his pushback:

"Asked about the film's opening sequence, which has prompted a protest from American Airlines because it wrongly put the onus on them for allowing Atta on board on Sept. 11, Nowrasteh answered:
"That whole sequence was vetted. Attorneys and advisors looked at it."

So lawyers and advisors had Atta being waved through by THE WRONG AIRLINE. Well, I'm sure that'll help when he's writing American that big old check.
Ahistorical hackery, defended by an ahistorical hack.
Shocked, I tell you.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

They fabricated scenes in a movie based on real life. Can't do that, especially when your movie deals with this sort of subject matter, and not expect to get some shit.

Oh, and as soon as you point out someone who can hold up the other end, I'm all for that mature conversation. But linking stories and making dipshit remarks about the big, bad media -- which, I'm not sure if you know this, but we're all a part of that "media" -- doesn't qualify. Move along now. I'm sure there's another anti-Republican atrocity being committed somewhere that you need to sniff out.