Carol Platt Liebau: What a Bunch of Babies

Thursday, September 07, 2006

What a Bunch of Babies

Clinton administration officials continue to cry about the pending ABC program about 9/11:

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Clinton Foundation head Bruce Lindsey and Clinton adviser Douglas Band wrote in the past week to Robert Iger, CEO of ABC's parent The Walt Disney Co., to express concern over "The Path to 9/11."

Perhaps it's a good thing after all that this gang-who-can't-shoot-straight kicked the Islamofascist can down the road and opposed any meaningful response to the attacks that occurred on their watch. If they're this hysetrical over a television show, it makes it obvious that -- like so many Democrats -- they were clearly incapable of handling the kind of enemies Bush confronts daily, both at home and abroad.

22 Comments:

Blogger Cliff said...

If we can suffer through Michael Moore's, "911" they can put up with this!

10:22 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol Platt Liebau in November of 2003 on a docudrama about Ronald Reagan...

To me, it was perfectly justified for conservatives to raise the roof about this matter -- and demand that the movie, which was being represented as a truthful historical depiction, actually make some attempt at presenting the truth, or else be withdrawn. Unlike the liberals who cannot stand challenges to their own chosen policies, I invite any liberal to take on President Reagan -- the liberal will lose. But it should be a fair fight -- not one where fictional words are created in order to propagate a deliberate distortion of President Reagan's character, beliefs and nature.

Yes, we could have waited for the movie to air and then complained. But by then, the damage is done. Having anything aired on television gives it at least a veneer of legitimacy -- and millions of people would have seen a shameful piece of left-wing propaganda, and at least some (particularly the young or the forgetful) would assume it was the truth. What conservatives did was nothing more than launch a preemptive strike on a cruel smattering of lies and distortions, designed to put an ailing President Reagan and his wife in the worst possible light -- and to marginalize many of the same conservative principles that are held by our current president.

By withdrawing the piece, CBS in effect conceded that the portrait that was emerging of President Reagan, as depicted by James Brolin, was NOT the truth. Yes, perhaps there will be a chilling effect; maybe liberals will think twice before they try to produce a piece of propaganda that must resort to fiction -- but is presented as "truth" -- in order to attack conservatives, Christians or any other class that is disfavored by the media elite.

But I don't think that's a bad thing. The creators of whatever's left of our common culture have a responsibility. If they want to make up a liberal "Superman" president and neanderthal conservative legislators, they are free to do so -- watch, e.g., the West Wing (I don't, anymore). That's fiction, everyone knows it's fiction, and that's perfectly fair (although tedious).

I remember being in high school when The Day After was released in 1983 -- a TV movie that depicted the aftermath of a nuclear explosion in the U.S. It was nothing more than a sermon in favor of nuclear disarmament -- and in the school newspaper at the time, I wrote that the network broadcasting that screed shouldn't be wrapping political propaganda in the guise of "non-political entertainment." The situation with the Reagans is analogous (and even more egregious, since it was actually claiming to be "history"). Got a point to make? Go for it -- but those who set forth a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth have an obligation to make sure that it's as accurate as it can possibly be. And if they can't win the argument on its merits -- whether about Ronald Reagan or nuclear disarmament -- they shouldn't be slimy enough to fictionalize everything so that the facts are suddenly in their favor. But maybe they sense that it's the only way they can win.


[Cite]

11:38 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Can you say hypocritical? I knew you could.

11:39 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Just in case anyone missed Carol's main point...

...those who set forth a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth have an obligation to make sure that it's as accurate as it can possibly be. And if they can't win the argument on its merits... they shouldn't be slimy enough to fictionalize everything so that the facts are suddenly in their favor.

11:49 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Mr. Twister, Excuse me but...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

12:27 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Mr. Twister, Excuse me but...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

The speck in Carol's eye. Evidently he views himself as positively clear-sighted, having not even the slightest mote of sawdust in his own.

From Carol's cited post:
not one where fictional words are created in order to propagate a deliberate distortion of President Reagan's character, beliefs and nature.
Apparently our twisted commenter believes something in the film has fictionalized the words of Bill Clinton to deliberately distort his character, beliefs and nature.

1:10 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

And all this when none of us have seen the film yet!

2:24 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Cliff the Ignorant asks, "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?"

I'm just saying that I agree wholeheartedly with Carol's original position that "those who set forth a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth have an obligation to make sure that it's as accurate as it can possibly be. And if they can't win the argument on its merits... they shouldn't be slimy enough to fictionalize everything so that the facts are suddenly in their favor."

I though it was rare enough that I agree with Carol that I should give her opinions wide airing--keeping full context and all that. I take it that you and eLarson disagree with Carol in this regard?

2:45 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

So eLarson which part of Carol's claim that "those who set forth a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth have an obligation to make sure that it's as accurate as it can possibly be. And if they can't win the argument on its merits... they shouldn't be slimy enough to fictionalize everything so that the facts are suddenly in their favor." do you disagreeing with?

Are you actually arguing that there are limits to how accurate a piece of propaganda with an implicit assertion that it is the truth is expected to be? Fascinating.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Cliff displays yet more ignorance with "And all this when none of us have seen the film yet!"

Carol's original opinions relating to the Reagan docudrama (that I quoted above) were made prior to its public airing. What exactly are you typing to imply about Carol, Cliff?

2:56 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Mr. Twister, Dude, you're wacked!

3:02 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol wrote, "Yes, we could have waited for the movie to air and then complained. But by then, the damage is done. Having anything aired on television gives it at least a veneer of legitimacy -- and millions of people would have seen a shameful piece of right-wing [Carol had "left-wing" mr.t] propaganda, and at least some (particularly the young or the forgetful) would assume it was the truth."

Cliff writes, "Mr. Twister, Dude, you're wacked!"

Was Carol wacked when she wrote the above? Just a question for you Cliff, because I fail to see any distinction between Carol's earlier position and the one I am espousing now.

3:44 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

In both cases, the films were screened by someone and then the assertions were made. In the Reagan case, it was clearly slanted to suggest something untrue. In this case, there are only accusations. Michael Medved has seen the entire mini-series and so far so good. He's interviewing the writer this week, I believe and reserving comment until then. Hewitt interviewed the guy yesterday and no problem. If the left believes there to be flaws, point them out and I'm sure a rebuttal will be forthcoming. The conservatives pointed out flaws in the Reagan film and I don't believe a decent rebuttal was given. I could be wrong. According to the Hewitt interview, the writer insists that the film making was done under the observation of numerous advisors--people with first hand knowledge--and he was very concerned with portraying events as they happened to the best of his ability. Frankly, the Reagan example, already tried BTW, seems a stretch. Superficially it might seem the same, but a closer comparison will likely show something else. All in all, as the film depicts the lead up to 9/11, what's most uncomfortable for the Clinton admin is that most of that lead up is during his watch. But I don't think you'll see Bush getting a pass. Let's all watch.

5:11 PM  
Blogger Cliff said...

The ABC "movie," by their own advertising, is taken from the 9-11 commission report, quotes and all. Those who have copies of the original, uncut version, or of the 9-11 report, will be able to tell us what was cut. The "Reagan" movie was SPECULATION at best and that is the difference. By Tuesday of next week we will know what parts the Clintons didn't want us to see. The problem is, why is the ABC News dept. caving to and protecting the Clintons?

5:18 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Marshall says, "If the left believes there to be flaws, point them out and I'm sure a rebuttal will be forthcoming."

"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," -- President Bill Clinton

"As we [members of the 9/11 Commission] were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission's findings the way that they had." -- Richard Ben-Veniste 9/11 Commissioner

"It's 180 degrees from what happened." -- Richard Clarke Anti-Terrorism Czar Pres. Clinton and Bush 43

We have substantive complaints from that the movie is factually inaccurate and politically slanted to benefit Republicans in an election year. ABC/Disney has refused to respond other than to say "it's fictional" and "we're not done editting yet."

Marshal Art again, "According to the Hewitt interview, the writer insists that the film making was done under the observation of numerous advisors--people with first hand knowledge--and he was very concerned with portraying events as they happened to the best of his ability."

The FBI consultant to the film walked out half-way thorugh because he thought they were "making things up." [Cite] Did Hugh happen to mention that, Marshall?

Marhsal writes, "Frankly, the Reagan example, already tried BTW, seems a stretch. Superficially it might seem the same, but a closer comparison will likely show something else."

Marshall again, "Let's all watch."

I have a better idea. Let's have ABC pull the movie before it is shown, just like CBS pulled the Reagan biopic. As Carol noted then, "Yes, we could have waited for the movie to air and then complained. But by then, the damage is done. Having anything aired on television gives it at least a veneer of legitimacy -- and millions of people would have seen a shameful piece of right-wing [originally "left-wing": mr.t] propaganda, and at least some (particularly the young or the forgetful) would assume it was the truth."

7:41 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

All the libs are circling the wagons around their Golden Boy Clinton.

None of the cited quotations actually delve into what they think was so incredibly wrong. As such, they aren't really actionable.

What ABC can do with the thing between now and airtime is anyone's guess.

But does anyone care to guess what the demand will be for "uncut and uneditted" versions on DVD? Can't buy this kind of publicity.

8:05 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Ah, but here's something:
"the 9/11 commission's report found Clinton was 'deeply concerned about bin Laden'"

And aside from biting his lower lip, that did basically zero good in practice. But glad he was concerned. I know I feel better knowing that.

I think the movie's Sandy Berger-like character putting the kibosh on the action to Get OBL is also a bone of contention. The sainted Commission determined that Tenent killed that mission.

Say... what DID Sandy Berger put in his socks on his way out of the Archives? Well the world (and most importantly The Commission) will never know.

8:24 PM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

"None of the cited quotations actually delve into what they think was so incredibly wrong. As such, they aren't really actionable."

Exactly. As to what Hewitt asked, all I can say was that I didn't hear the whole interview and didn't mean to imply that I did. Certainly, there has to be some license in the recreation of any event, unless the entire thing is on tape, which would make the film unnecessary. So it's possible that it was those scenes that confused the Fed, who the f knows? But by all means, continue to pick nits if it helps you get through the day.

10:59 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

In defense of our twisted, er, colleague, there are better and more substantive quotes from former Clinton Administration officials out there.

For whatever reason, he elected not to post any of those.

Here's one, inre: the USS Cole, from the ironically named Madeline Albright: "Bombing Muslims wouldn't be helpful at this time."

That quote was drawn from the recollection of the above-mentioned Richard Clarke, incidentally. It goes to show that if the Clinton Clan was preoccupied with anything, it was with making Bill out to be The Peacemaker between Israel and Arafat. I nice goal, sure, but unfortunately one that didn't really bear fruit in the long run.

6:30 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

Didn't I hear something about a movie being made where Bush gets assassinated?

Is Bush crying and whining about that lowest of low fictional garbage?

8:34 AM  
Blogger dodger said...

Regarding the Reagan brouhaha I always say one thing doesn't justify another, hence there is no hypocrisy. Each case must stand on its own. I think we already know that giving Bush eight months to solve the threat of terrorism is unrealistic. Something had to have preceded.

8:48 AM  
Blogger eLarson said...

I think we already know that giving Bush eight months to solve the threat of terrorism is unrealistic.

That would also mean that the planning and build up for the 9/11/01 attacks just may have begun prior to January 2001 when Bush was sworn in.

2:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google