Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Crossing the line. Patriotism vs....
Amongst the many 9/11 entries, I ran across this one from Sarah Beth Jones. I am in total disagreement with her conclusions about the Bush administration, but there is no question- from reading her entry- that she is as much a patriot as anyone. Her article along with current events lead me to ask, where does dissent cross the line from patriotism to treachery?
The current events I am refering to involve the efforts of various liberal groups to censor and/or prevent The Path To 9/11 from airing. Doug Clark asks why?- what's the big deal- the film exposed as much if not more security blunders in the Bush adminstration leading up to 9/11?
The reason these actions by Move On and others is treacherous and unpatriotic is that they are really angry over how the film portrays our enemy. (Clinton and Berger were just trying to protect their own interests).
The movie portrays the enemy exactly as the Bush adminstration does- and therefore tends to validate many of his covert and military actions. That's why they didn't want it to air. That's why these people are acting unpatriotic.
The current events I am refering to involve the efforts of various liberal groups to censor and/or prevent The Path To 9/11 from airing. Doug Clark asks why?- what's the big deal- the film exposed as much if not more security blunders in the Bush adminstration leading up to 9/11?
The reason these actions by Move On and others is treacherous and unpatriotic is that they are really angry over how the film portrays our enemy. (Clinton and Berger were just trying to protect their own interests).
The movie portrays the enemy exactly as the Bush adminstration does- and therefore tends to validate many of his covert and military actions. That's why they didn't want it to air. That's why these people are acting unpatriotic.
Comments:
<< Home
"The reason these actions by Move On and others is treacherous and unpatriotic is that they are really angry over how the film portrays our enemy."
Other than your won imagination, do you have anything to support that? Any quote, any utterance, any writing that could even remotely support the notion that MoveOn.org was angy over how the film portrayed our enemies?
Other than your won imagination, do you have anything to support that? Any quote, any utterance, any writing that could even remotely support the notion that MoveOn.org was angy over how the film portrayed our enemies?
Apparently, we should give our children's lives to safeguard our freedoms, but we should simply not try to exercise them, eh?
Is there nothing you won't twist to make it pro-administration and anti-anyone you disagree with? For goodness sake, patriotism?
Is there nothing you won't twist to make it pro-administration and anti-anyone you disagree with? For goodness sake, patriotism?
# posted by 
: 9/12/2006 01:47:00 PM
: 9/12/2006 01:47:00 PM
Blogger keeps losing my comment- sorry for the delay. I am fishing here because I watched the film and there is no way MoveOn and the other Democrat power brokers should have been worried about how Clinton and his staff came across. (I understand why Clinton would be concerned on a personal level.)
The film portrays Government agencies from 3 administrations as stumbling over themselves, only the FBI & CIA field agents look competent, but no one was intentionally derelict. It revealed agencies prevented from helping other agencies, inner strife between officials and more. Bush’s people come across every bit as bad as Clinton people.
So the MoveOn explanation makes no sense. They aren’t stupid. What would make sense is the film’s portrayal of the terrorists- it does justify a lot of the actions Bush has undertaken since 9/11. I am saying it is unpatriotic to paint the enemy in a more favorable light than they deserve.
Does MoveOn do that? Good question- I think they do.
The film portrays Government agencies from 3 administrations as stumbling over themselves, only the FBI & CIA field agents look competent, but no one was intentionally derelict. It revealed agencies prevented from helping other agencies, inner strife between officials and more. Bush’s people come across every bit as bad as Clinton people.
So the MoveOn explanation makes no sense. They aren’t stupid. What would make sense is the film’s portrayal of the terrorists- it does justify a lot of the actions Bush has undertaken since 9/11. I am saying it is unpatriotic to paint the enemy in a more favorable light than they deserve.
Does MoveOn do that? Good question- I think they do.
"Does MoveOn do that? Good question- I think they do."
Oaky, you've avoided answering the questions Stew and I had by saying that you meant something different -- also not supported. What evidence can you point to that MoveOn.org "paints the enemy in a more favorable light than they deserve?"
Oaky, you've avoided answering the questions Stew and I had by saying that you meant something different -- also not supported. What evidence can you point to that MoveOn.org "paints the enemy in a more favorable light than they deserve?"
Xristspeak,
Did the movie portray the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:
"Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US?"
I bet it didn't.
But you're willing to overlook that small little item, eh?
Did the movie portray the Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing:
"Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US?"
I bet it didn't.
But you're willing to overlook that small little item, eh?
# posted by : 9/13/2006 09:46:00 AM
: 9/13/2006 09:46:00 AM
"Roch if they aren't doing that..."
Now we are on to your third unfounded accusation. Each one offered to avoid substantiating the previous.
Are they or aren't they? You've made three claims about what MoveOn.org is doing. Are they doing the three things you claim or are you just making stuff up?
Now we are on to your third unfounded accusation. Each one offered to avoid substantiating the previous.
Are they or aren't they? You've made three claims about what MoveOn.org is doing. Are they doing the three things you claim or are you just making stuff up?
Bruce- thanks for the question- it did reveal Bush people absolutely were warned daily of an imminent attack by Bin Laden. It did not portray any President in meetings. No one in positions of authority from either adminsitration comes off looking good in hindsight. As I implied, we should all assume Albright and Rice and all the others had the country's best interest in mind, but the film reveals all the agency rivalries, lack of communication, lack of priority and poor chain of command that was in place on 9/11. So your assumption and premise is 100% wrong. It is a fascinating work of historical fiction- based almost entirely on the findings of the 9/11 comission.
Not so fast Roch hound- First- my point is that liberal groups campaigned against the movie. As Bruce's question reveals- they claimed it made Clinton's adminstration look bad and Bush look good. They said it was full of holes or lies, propaganda from Bush supporters.
So I watch the film and see something entirely different. I know that many of these liberal groups are not beholden to Clinton (he's just out to protect his legacy) as they are to ending the war and denouncing Bush. I also know they are smart.
So why were they so threatened by this film? I suggest or charge it is because the film indirectly does justify many of Bush's actions after 9/11- BY ITS PORTRAYAL OF THE ENEMY.
http://newsbusters.org/node/7417
moviehttp://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2644
So I watch the film and see something entirely different. I know that many of these liberal groups are not beholden to Clinton (he's just out to protect his legacy) as they are to ending the war and denouncing Bush. I also know they are smart.
So why were they so threatened by this film? I suggest or charge it is because the film indirectly does justify many of Bush's actions after 9/11- BY ITS PORTRAYAL OF THE ENEMY.
http://newsbusters.org/node/7417
moviehttp://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=2644
Here is the take of the bastion of liberal thought - the WSJ Editorial page:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008925
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008925
# posted by : 9/13/2006 01:54:00 PM
: 9/13/2006 01:54:00 PM
Edward R Murrow said, "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." It's as true today as it was during the McCarthy era of which he referred.
The problem with the Path to 9/11 is that it's full of misinformation that the general public will slurp up as truth - not the way the terrorists were represented. Terrorists are terrorists, period. The imbedded lies to a disservice to the American public who trust that when something is called a documentary, it contains verifyable truth.
As for Bush, I think he should be tried on war crimes - despite what you think, history will show that this is an unfounded war, built around making Bush and his henchmen rich. Guess what? It's working.
The problem with the Path to 9/11 is that it's full of misinformation that the general public will slurp up as truth - not the way the terrorists were represented. Terrorists are terrorists, period. The imbedded lies to a disservice to the American public who trust that when something is called a documentary, it contains verifyable truth.
As for Bush, I think he should be tried on war crimes - despite what you think, history will show that this is an unfounded war, built around making Bush and his henchmen rich. Guess what? It's working.
Well said PS. My guess is that on matters of national security all of us bloggers are simply speculating. I never thought it mattered- from a damning point of view- who of our people screwed up on 9/11. What matters is that we learned from it. We are learning.
The real bad news for the terrorists is that they woke us up permanently. I'm sure we'll always be struggling from within- but now both parties will make our security their top priorities.
I think patriotism includes dissent. If we all agree that our current enemies are the real threat to our existence, rather than people we elect, I stand corrected.
I doubt the movie is as full of misinformation as some imply, because its main point was that the agencies and administrations' foreign policies got in the way of national security.
Finally, Ms Jones- I believe history will show the opposite. Maybe we can all meet up at rest home 30-40 years from now and see who's right.
The real bad news for the terrorists is that they woke us up permanently. I'm sure we'll always be struggling from within- but now both parties will make our security their top priorities.
I think patriotism includes dissent. If we all agree that our current enemies are the real threat to our existence, rather than people we elect, I stand corrected.
I doubt the movie is as full of misinformation as some imply, because its main point was that the agencies and administrations' foreign policies got in the way of national security.
Finally, Ms Jones- I believe history will show the opposite. Maybe we can all meet up at rest home 30-40 years from now and see who's right.
Caserta- Just read your link- thanks. If this movie was to be a form teaching history, I was not aware of it. The fact it used made up dialouges from real people automatically discredits it as a good representation of everything that happened.
But I doubt whether some of the facts in question are accurately portrayed is relevant! It made two points - we got in our own people's way and that we underestimated the real enemy.
But I doubt whether some of the facts in question are accurately portrayed is relevant! It made two points - we got in our own people's way and that we underestimated the real enemy.
It's a date - 30 year years from now, I'll be knocking at your rest home door (hopefully at 58 I won't yet be in need of one).
The liberal groups did more than campaign against the movie. Congressional Democrats threatened to retaliate against ABC. That's a fact.
And out of all the people who commented above, I can only remember reading Roch stating that the Congressional response was wrong. All the rest is deflection, Chip.
One more thing: the work was a docudrama, the same category as "Farenheit 911", without the one-sided bias.
I love it when we get comments like "As for Bush, I think he should be tried on war crimes".
No extreme agenda on display there, right?
Watch for the Law of Unintended Consequence to come into play this November.
Post a Comment
And out of all the people who commented above, I can only remember reading Roch stating that the Congressional response was wrong. All the rest is deflection, Chip.
One more thing: the work was a docudrama, the same category as "Farenheit 911", without the one-sided bias.
I love it when we get comments like "As for Bush, I think he should be tried on war crimes".
No extreme agenda on display there, right?
Watch for the Law of Unintended Consequence to come into play this November.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]