|
|
Posted by David Totheroh on 09/11/06 03:30
Ed Hulse wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> > The criticism against ABC s docudrama The Path to 9/11 isn t isolated
> > simply to Clinton aides. In fact, many conservatives have criticized
> > the film.
>
> Yes, because "many conservatives" have the intellectual honesty that
> would be so refreshing were it more frequently found in liberals. I'm
> delighted to see Mr. Totheroh quoting John Podhoretz, Brent Bozell, et
> al without insinuating that they are fascists or morons, which are just
> two of the labels frequently attached to gentlemen of their political
> persuasion. Who *says* we can't just all get along? Liberals and MSM
> types will always tolerate conservatives who spring to the defense of
> Bill Clinton or denounce George W. Bush. (Witness the recent media
> fawning over former FEMA head Michael Brown, who was thrashed by every
> liberal pundit on television -- until he started crying that he was
> just the fall guy and blaming the adminstration for the very ineptitude
> that the MSM had so painstakingly attributed to him. To a man, every
> one of Brown's harshest critics invited him on their various shows,
> treating him with the respect and deference they didn't have the
> decency to show him during the Katrina crisis.)
It's amazing how telling the truth (even to the MSM) engenders "respect
and deference" in ways that completely transparent CYA statements ("We
just learned about the Superdome") don't.
>
> The truly fascinating thing about the whole PATH TO 9/11 episode, of
> course, is the thoroughgoing denunication of the film by liberals who
> haven't seen it, but who blithely dismissed or openly chastised
> conservatives who made the exact same charges about the Reagan
> miniseries and the Oliver Stone fever dreams masquerading as movies
> based on recent history. The righties who called for boycotts were
> importuned basically to sit down and shut up, and grant these
> filmmakers "artistic license" in pursuit of their visions, letting the
> historical chips fall where they might.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the objections to the Reagan bio were that
it depicted truths that were considered disrespectful; Nancy's
astrologer, Ronnie's contra involvement. That, to me, is a different
category than direct factual misrepresentations (according to the FBI
agent who resigned as a technical advisor to the film when his
objections to portrayals were consciously ignored) known by even those
who have not viewed the final cut. The attitude toward truthtelling
indicated by those actions of the producers/director over the course of
the film's production is very telling.
>
> I'm against the falsification of history whether the subject is Bill
> Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Joe McCarthy. Or any other historical
> figure. I certainly hope Mr. Totheroh will join me, down the road, in
> expressing reservations about the inevitable cinematic chronicle of the
> Valerie Plame affair, in which the leaker tipping off Bob Novak will no
> doubt be shown to be Karl Rove rather than Richard Armitage.
I'm more than happy to join you. Mr. Hulse, in expressing reservations
that just because Armitage ALSO leaked classified information, that
that fact somehow negates all the documentation that shows a concerted
effort on the part of the Bush administration to try to discredit
Wilson. The evidence is clear. Rove DID "tip off" Novak, he's (finally)
admitted to doing so, and on the same day Armitage talked to Novak. The
only thing the evidence is NOT clear about is whether Rove was the
primary source or the confirming second source.
The 'new' information regarding Armitage (I first read reports to that
effect 5 1/2 months ago) in no way changes the fact that at least 6
other reporters were informed of Plame's status and involvement during
the same timeframe by several administration officials.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|