My Photo

Recent Comments

COMMENTS?

  • We love comments, but they are treated like letters to the editor -- only some are permanently published. Comments may be depublished or edited if they contain profanity or personal attacks or if they include statements that are false, defamatory, unethical, immoral, or illogical. Rude or inappropriate comments or spam may result in a permanent website ban (comments auto-deleted), so don't do that. Thanks.
  • Google

Like This Blog?

  • Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to Google

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Add to My AOL

  • Word of the Day

    This Day in History

    In the News

    Quote of the Day

    Spelling Bee
    difficulty level:
    score: -
    please wait...
     
    spell the word:

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

26 entries categorized "Film"

May 13, 2008

Mayor of Rome Blacklists US Movies From Upcoming Film Festival

By DemocracyRules
h/t Corriere Della Sera

ROME -- Di Caprio, Clooney, Kidman, avanti!  ("Pointless photo ops," mayor Gianni Alemanno says.)

"Rome's 'Duce' to freeze out US film stars... the new mayor... has launched a campaign to promote Italian films at the expense of those featuring Hollywood stars such as Nicole Kidman and Leonardo Di Caprio, who are to be blacklisted”.

Tamaralees_ginalollobrigida

The far-left London Sunday Times has labeled Rome's new mayor “a former fascist”.  Some researchers have actually timed how long it takes a leftist to label anyone they disagree with as a Nazi.  A whole metric has been developed.   

The Times didn't specify whether they also thought Daffy Duck was Hitler's new identity.

The center-right newspaper Corriere Della Sera thinks it's funny.  So do I.  I find myself liking Gianni Alemanno.

Pro Patria and Viva La Festa del Cinema Roma!

May 04, 2008

Beware the Watch Pig

By DemocracyRules

h/t Small Dead Animals

I especially liked the Sausage-Swastika's

Pro Patria

March 03, 2008

Hand Her an Oscar; Suddenly She's an Expert on Everything

Best actress Oscar winner Marion Cotillard says the 9/11 attacks were made up and that the World Trade Center towers were destroyed because they were obsolete. 

Oh -- and she also questions the 1969 moon landing.

Clearly, being a logical thinker is not a prerequisite to achieving the highest levels of peer recognition in Hollywood.

This is a good iillustration of the potential hazards of listening to experts on subjects outside their areas of expertise.

If you want good advice on how to become an award-winning actor, ask Ms. Cotillard.  But if you want good advice on the worldside Islamic jihad or the space program, she clearly is not your go-to gal.  For that you're going to need someone who actually has a clue.   

February 10, 2008

Writers' Strike Over

By DemocracyRules

Good, good, that's great... by the way, what writer's strike?

February 06, 2008

Goya Girlz

By DemocracyRules

Goyaawards

Winner of the Best Upcoming Actress award Manuela Velasco (L), winner of the Best Actor award Alberto San Juan and winner of the Best Actress award Maribel Verdu (R) pose at the end of the Spanish Film Academy "Goya" awards ceremony in Madrid Feb. 3, 2008.(Xinhua/Reuters Photo)

Uh, I think I'll move to Spain -- tommorrow.

January 21, 2008

If You Show That Movie, We Will Hate You

By DemocracyRules

Scaryclown ON THE OTHER HAND, if you don't show the movie, we will still hate you.  Therefore do what we want.
It's another 10 minute Dutch movie about Islamic hate.

The film-maker is Geert Wilders, who is well known as an anti-Islamist politician.  He is already living under police protection, but he is determined to show his movie.  This guy is brave.

Iran (which is currently freezing in the dark), is upset (blub).
"In Iran, insulting Islam is a very sensitive matter and if the movie is broadcasted it will arouse a wave of popular hate that will be directed towards any government that insults Islam."

The movie is still in production, so this is a preemptive strike on Iran's part.  If I ever make a movie about Islam, I will try to arrange for Iran to hate it.  Then they can help me promote the movie by denouncing it.
Pro Patria

"Cloverfield" Plot Summary

From DemocracyRules

h/t Jawa Report
Cloverfield_review YAAAAAAARRRRRGGHHH!!!!





(Really, that's about it...)

October 19, 2007

An Inconvenient Truth: The Only Q & A You'll Ever Need

Inconvenient Q:  What percentage of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" consists of either claims that are known to be scientifically inaccurate or non-science filler?

A:  Just about all of it.

September 13, 2007

BREAKING NEWS: Vindicated! The Bin Laden Videos Are Fakes!

I blogged about the possible fakery in the recent Bin Laden video four days ago on September 9th ("Is the Bin Laden Video a Forgery?") and again two days ago on September 11th ("Both Recent Osama Bin Laden Videos Are Sock Puppet Fakery"), and now it's been confirmed:

On the Friday before the sixth anniversary of 9/11, Osama bin Laden appeared in a new video, his first since prior to the U.S. presidential elections in 2004. In analyzing the video, Neal Krawetz of Hactor Factor, an expert on digital image forensics, said in his latest blogs that the video contained many visual and audio splices, and that all of the modifications were of very low quality.

Most striking is bin Laden's beard, which has been gray in recent images. For this video it is black. "As far as my tools can detect, there has been no image manipulation of the bin Laden portion of the image beyond contrast adjustment. His beard really does appear to be that color." The Washington Post has the full video here.

Krawetz says the inner frame of bin Laden was resaved at least twice, and not at the same time. The images show fine horizontal stripes on bin Laden and a background indicating these came from interlaced video sources. In contrast, the text elements, such as the As-Sahab logo, appear to be from non-interlaced sources.

The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."

More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

As I wrote on September 11th:

There is no plausible explanation for Bin Laden's video image to be frozen in two separate videos while he is speaking of recent events-- except for video fakery. 

I'm more convinced than ever that Bin Laden is dead or that he has dramatically altered his appearance and seeks to avoid detection.  Either way, the video images we are seeing are years out of date.

Given the strange references to liberal hot-button issues like global warming in the latest Bin Laden video and other oddities, I think it more likely that Bin Laden is dead and that the "Bin Laden" videos are being entirely ghost-written.

As a practical matter, the West should proceed on the working assumption that Bin Laden is dead unless and until Al Qaeda produces credible video of Bin Laden in which his lips are moving when he speaks of current events.

When we fall for sock puppetry, we are being played for chumps by jihadists.  In addition to lending aid and comfort to America's enemies by our naivete, we waste precious, irreplaceable time foolishly debating the wrong questions such as "Why haven't we yet caught Bin Laden?" and whether we should withdraw from Iraq in order to look for Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

If Bin Laden is alive, let Al Qaeda prove it.  Their video sock puppetry suggests otherwise.  Either they are engaged in an elaborate double hoax to lead the world to believe that Bin Laden is dead when he really is not (a hoax which the world has yet to even recognize), or, more likely, Bin Laden is indeed worm food and the jihadists are working with their dwindling supply of old videotape and one of Bin Laden's many male relatives to record the audio track.

I am surprised that more in the blogosphere, especially on the right, have not yet sounded the alarm about the apparent Bin Laden video fakery.  In their defense, it has been a busy news week with General Petraeus's testimony to Congress and the 9/11 anniversary.  Further, the conclusion that the videos are fakes is a matter of opinion, although one supported by the evidence in hand.

As we have learned through one media mistake and distortion after another in the war on terror discovered only by the blogosphere, we cannot rely on the Associated Press or Reuters to recognize a fake when it is presented to them.  That is our job. I'm calling foul.

Remember, you read it here before you heard it from the AP, Reuters, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, or the New York Times.

Let's see how long it takes them to catch up.

Update:  Consider all the foolish stories being uncritically printed and broadcast by the media this week that make no sense in light of this evidence.  Journalists are reporting that Osama Bin Laden is "taunting" the U.S. in his latest video. 

No, some dweeb with video editing equipment in a back room is "taunting" the U.S., while Bin Laden is mouldering in the grave (or -- remote possibility -- while he is cowering somewhere afraid to make a video that shows his current appearance). That Bin Laden is long dead is far more likely.  It's a better fit with the facts and with what we know about human nature and the nature of terrorists.

But why does it matter?

Let me ask this in return:  Should America be sending more troops to hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan?  Or would that be a colossal waste of time, money, soldiers' lives, energy, and resources -- because Bin Laden is already dead?

Are we better off staying to fight Al Qaeda right where we are in Iraq?

It's rather an important question, wouldn't you say?  It's more important than any other lead story you'll find in the print or broadcast media today, isn't it?

And yet we have total silence from the print and broadcast media on this story so far.  What's their excuse?  They have yet to even recognize that the issue of video fakery exists, let alone report the evidence that confirms these videos are fakes.

Update:  A little example of Bin Laden video fakery for your amusement.

__________________________

Like this story?  Digg It.

July 18, 2007

If Al Qaeda Is "Evolving," Why Can't America's Iraq Strategy Evolve Too?

Here's what passes for the conventional wisdom on Iraq:  The war was badly planned and therefore is failing miserably.  As a result, America's only option is to fold up the entire operation and slink away, leaving the Iraqis to whatever bloodbath awaits them.  We've reached the point of no return; the war is irretrievably lost; and no amount of rethinking or redoubling of effort will make any difference.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda's early losses in the war on terror, including the deaths of major leaders such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and possibly Osama Bin Ladin himself, are completely irrelevant, since Al Qaeda is "evolving" constantly and is planning mass casualty attacks on the U.S.:

Al Qaeda terrorists are rebuilding their capabilities and continuing to plan mass-casualty attacks inside the United States, according to an intelligence assessment made public yesterday.

"We assess [al Qaeda] has protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability, including a safe haven in ... Pakistan [tribal areas], operational lieutenants and its top leadership," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), a consensus analysis of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," the report stated.

Retired Vice Adm. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence whose office produced the NIE, said the United States will face a "persistent and evolving terrorist threat" in the next three years.

The seven-page public summary of the classified report said the United States is in a "heightened threat environment."

"They're working as hard as they can in positioning trained operatives here in the United States," Mr. McConnell said. "They have recruitment programs to bring recruits into [the tribal] region of Pakistan [who] could come to the United States, fit into the population and then use some of the training that they receive in the Pakistani area for explosives and so on."

Is the contrast between the defeatism of the media in viewing America's chances in the Iraq war and the endless optimism for Al Qaeda's chances stark enough for you?

Al Qaeda remains a threat because it is "continuing to plan" further attacks and "will intensify its efforts" and its members are "working as hard as they can."

But when it comes to the Iraq war, working harder, intensifying efforts, rethinking, and continuing to plan are off the table for the United States.  The only option we have is to rip our leaders from limb to limb, metaphorically speaking, for having started the war.  Since things look bleak now, they're going to stay that way no matter what America does, and its only option is to turn tail and run.

Don't tell me we've tried long enough and hard enough in Iraq and there's no point in continuing any longer.  Nonsense.  Al Qaeda's attacks on the U.S. predate the Iraq war, but nobody seems to be pulling out a stopwatch and insisting that Al Qaeda's chances of striking a mortal blow at the U.S. or the West are forever lost.

What a fitting metaphor is Harry Reid's surrender slumberthon in the Senate tonight.  Harry Reid knows how to lose a war he has already declared lost.  The solution is quite simple:  Lie down, accept defeat, and make no effort to prevail.

In the real world, the margin between victory and defeat is rarely great, but the outcome matters a great deal.  The margin of victory usually turns on one thing:  motivation.  If we are motivated to win; if we are determined; if we are constantly "rebuilding our capabilities" and "continuing to plan" and "intensifying our efforts  and "working as hard as we can," then there are very few forces on earth that can stand in our way.

By the same token, if we are frequently announcing that we've already lost and that our cause is hopeless, and holding slumberthons to protest our own nation's continued effort to prevail, then we certainly can bring about our own defeat.

Update:  Today brings a stunningly important speech from Senator John McCain (via Captain's Quarters):

Mr. President, we have nearly finished this little exhibition, which was staged, I assume, for the benefit of a briefly amused press corps and in deference to political activists opposed to the war who have come to expect from Congress such gestures, empty though they may be, as proof that the majority in the Senate has heard their demands for action to end the war in Iraq. The outcome of this debate, the vote we are about to take, has never been in doubt to a single member of this body. And to state the obvious, nothing we have done for the last twenty-four hours will have changed any facts on the ground in Iraq or made the outcome of the war any more or less important to the security of our country. The stakes in this war remain as high today as they were yesterday; the consequences of an American defeat are just as grave; the costs of success just as dear. No battle will have been won or lost, no enemy will have been captured or killed, no ground will have been taken or surrendered, no soldier will have survived or been wounded, died or come home because we spent an entire night delivering our poll-tested message points, spinning our soundbites, arguing with each other, and substituting our amateur theatrics for statesmanship. All we have achieved are remarkably similar newspaper accounts of our inflated sense of the drama of this display and our own temporary physical fatigue. Tomorrow the press will move on to other things and we will be better rested. But nothing else will have changed.

In Iraq, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are still fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces’ storied past. Our enemies will still be intent on defeating us, and using our defeat to encourage their followers in the jihad they wage against us, a war which will become a greater threat to us should we quit the central battlefield in defeat. The Middle East will still be a tinderbox, which our defeat could ignite in a regional war that will imperil our vital interests at risk there and draw us into a longer and far more costly war. The prospect of genocide in Iraq, in which we will be morally complicit, is still as real a consequence of our withdrawal today as it was yesterday.

During our extended debate over the last few days, I have heard senators repeat certain arguments over and over again. My friends on the other side of this argument accuse those of us who oppose this amendment with advocating “staying the course,” which is intended to suggest that we are intent on continuing the mistakes that have put the outcome of the war in doubt. Yet we all know that with the arrival of General Petraeus we have changed course. We are now fighting a counterinsurgency strategy, which some of us have argued we should have been following from the beginning, and which makes the most effective use of our strength and does not strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics have failed, although the outcome remains far from certain. The tactics proposed in the amendment offered by my friends, Senators Levin and Reed – a smaller force, confined to bases distant from the battlefield, from where they will launch occasional search and destroy missions and train the Iraqi military – are precisely the tactics employed for most of this war and which have, by anyone’s account, failed miserably. Now, that, Mr. President, is staying the course, and it is a course that inevitably leads to our defeat and the catastrophic consequences for Iraq, the region and the security of the United States our defeat would entail.

Yes, we have heard quite a lot about the folly of “staying the course,” though the real outcome should this amendment prevail and be signed into law, would be to deny our generals and the Americans they have the honor to command the ability to try, in this late hour, to address the calamity these tried and failed tactics produced, and salvage from the wreckage of our previous failures a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people.

I have also listened to my colleagues on the other side repeatedly remind us that the American people have spoken in the last election. They have demanded we withdraw from Iraq, and it is our responsibility to do, as quickly as possible, what they have bid us to do. But is that our primary responsibility? Really, Mr. President, is that how we construe our role: to follow without question popular opinion even if we believe it to be in error, and likely to endanger the security of the country we have sworn to defend? Surely, we must be responsive to the people who have elected us to office, and who, if it is their wish, will remove us when they become unsatisfied with our failure to heed their demands. I understand that, of course. And I understand why so many Americans have become sick and tired of this war, given the many, many mistakes made by civilian and military leaders in its prosecution. I, too, have been made sick at heart by these mistakes and the terrible price we have paid for them. But I cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that I know will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything – seriously endanger the people I represent and the country I have served all my adult life. I have many responsibilities to the people of Arizona, and to all Americans. I take them all seriously, Mr. President, or try to. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others – and that is to do everything in my power, to use whatever meager talents I posses, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, Mr. President, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will explain my reasons to the American people. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted, and that as long as there is a prospect for not losing this war, then we must not choose to lose it. That is how I construe my responsibility to my constituency and my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. And it is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

I cannot be certain that I possess the skills to be persuasive. I cannot be certain that even if I could convince Americans to give General Petraeus the time he needs to determine whether we can prevail, that we will prevail in Iraq. All I am certain of is that our defeat there would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and that I cannot be complicit in it, but must do whatever I can, whether I am effective or not, to help us try to avert it. That, Mr. President, is all I can possibly offer my country at this time. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that, and am humbled by it, as we all are. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my colleagues and to all Americans who disagree with me: that as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril.

July 07, 2007

Al Gore's Theories Still Not So Hot

This pretty much speaks for itself:

Gore:  Ignorant or Dishonest?

A good question.  However, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

After responding to Gore's claim that atmospheric carbon is responsible for high temperatures on Venus, George Reisman writes:

It is on the basis of such ignorance or dishonesty that you declare that

we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth. (Italics added.)

The “global warming pollution” you talk about is the production of the energy that lights, heats, and air conditions our homes, powers our automobiles, trucks, trains, airplanes, and ships, runs our refrigerators, television sets, computers, and all other electrical appliances, and powers the machinery and equipment that produces all of the goods we buy. You want to cut this by a staggering percentage!

. . . .

If you understood in personal terms what you are talking about, you would know that your supposedly glorious “spiritual challenge” is a call for Mrs. Gore to scrub your laundry (if you would still have any) against a rock on the bank of a river, the way women do in Third World countries. That’s the actual meaning and measure of your “spiritual challenge.” You want to turn our glorious economic system into a poverty-stricken hell-hole.

Update 1:

In related news, scientists taking ice core samples from Greenland are discovering that Greenland was once much greener than it is today:

Ice-covered Greenland really was green a half-million or so years ago, covered with forests in a climate much like that of Sweden and eastern Canada today.

An international team of researchers recovered ancient DNA from the bottom of an ice core that indicates the presence of pine, yew and alder trees as well as insects.

The researchers, led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, say this is the first proof that there was forest in southern Greenland.

Included were genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles, they report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

As Ed Morrissey points out:

That has some implications for the climate-change debate. Advocates of anthropogenic climate change use Greenland as key evidence in their argument. They claim that the loss of Greenland's glacial mass -- which is still in dispute -- shows the effect that mankind has had on the Earth's climate. If Greenland's glaciers have only recently formed, then that argument makes little sense.

Update 2:  Some of the scientific data offered in support of claims of global warming was addressed on Sean Hannity's show.

Update 3:  If you haven't seen it already, check out the new guest post from Democracy Rules:  THE GORE-Y TRUTH.

June 29, 2007

Before You Waste Money on "Sicko"

. . . maybe you'd better read this from Gateway Pundit.

________________________________

Tags:  Michael Moore film movie health care healthcare Cuba Cuban

February 16, 2007

Congressman Who Stashed Cash in Freezer Gets Committee Appointment from House Dems

How bizarre.

Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson, who stashed $90,000 in cash in his freezer and who is facing a federal corruption probe, will get a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Do the leaders of the Democractic party in Congress have no shame?

Never mind. 

Their actions speak much louder than words.

November 06, 2006

Abu Ghraib Movie

Drudge links to this Reuters (figures) news: Hollywood's new blockbuster will be about the courage of young soldiers who take back Falluja, NOT. Mais oui, non, the film will be about....

OK, three guesses and the first two don't count and no, it's not the Cuban terrorist Four Seasons.

You guessed it! Abu Ghraib. Wait a minute. I posted it in the title. Shoot. Anyway, this will be the movie:

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Oscar-winning documentary veteran Errol Morris is developing a documentary about the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq.

The film will examine the infamous abuse and torture of inmates held as suspected terrorists in the Iraqi prison located 20 miles (32 kilometres) west of Baghdad. The scandal was revealed in 2004 when photos of inmates being tortured were published around the world.

It will be backed by Sony Pictures Classics, which released his last film, the Oscar-winning 2003 documentary "The Fog of War," and by Participant Prods., the socially conscious financier of the hit documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" as well as "The World According to Sesame Street."

Participant's executive vp documentary production Diane Weyermann announced the project during a seminar Sunday at the American Film Market in Santa Monica. Sony Classics officials declined comment.

Continue reading "Abu Ghraib Movie" »

October 03, 2006

The Glare. Best Avoided.

James Lileks got me laughing with his mini-review of the 1947 film noir “Lady in the Lake,” based on a 1943 novel by Raymond Chandler.  Robert Montgomery directed and starred in the movie. 

As Lileks points out, the movie's femme fatale, played by Audrey Totter, really knew how to glare:

The_glare

There's more.  Check out the five-glare series at Lileks.

That last glare has a disturbing touch of insanity, which is why I've settled on Glare No. 4 here.

So just how good is Audrey Totter's glare?  I had to Google it for comparison:  glare.  Nope, none of the "glare" pictures on page 1 or 2 even comes close.

How about a Google search for glaring?  A few better glares among the search results, but still nothing to give Audrey Totter a serious run for her money.

I liked this one, though:

Glaring_cat_1

If that was my cat I would hurry up and feed it.

The Power of the Glare™ .  Use sparingly.  Results may vary.

If you're on the receiving end -- flee.

__________________________________

Next time you get ready to buy something -- anything -- why not compare prices at Amazon.com?  If you start by clicking the Amazon ad here, no matter what you end up buying from Amazon some small reward will come this way.  There's an Amazon ad below and there's always one in the right column.  And remember, Amazon has just about everything now.  Toys.  DVDs.  Cameras.  Cell phones.  Pet supplies.  You can even put in the word "glare" and find stuff at Amazon, although it has absolutely nothing to do with film noir.  Thank you for visiting today, and double thank you every time you head on over to Amazon from here!

September 07, 2006

The Path to 9/11: Clinton Officials STILL On Same Self-Obsessed Path

"The Path to 9/11" is a five-hour dramatization laying out the history of the Sept. 11 plot from the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.  It is being be aired over two nights on the anniversary of the attack by ABC Television.

The movie reportedly notes lapses by the Clinton administration that may have contributed to 9/11, along with a few missed opportunities by the Bush White House.

Now the Clinton administration is up in arms about the movie, claiming it to be inaccurate.  Samuel "Sandy Pants" Berger, who was national security adviser to President Bill Clinton at the time -- and who was caught removing documents from the national archives by stuffing them in his pants -- calls the scenes involving him "complete fabrications."   

Berger and other former Clinton administration officials of course have reason to be embarrassed about having missed some opportunities to stop Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before it was too late.  And something must have embarrassed Berger a great deal for him to have knowingly smuggled classified documents out of the national archives.

If anything, the denials of responsibility by former members of the Clinton Administration only convince me further that the Clintonistas are still on the "path to 9/11," figuratively speaking. 

They are still vastly more concerned with themselves and their own personal political fortunes than they are with the mortal threat to America from Islamic terrorists.

They are still self-obsessed today, just as they were demonstrably self-obsessed before 9/11.  Clinton's abuse of the Oval Office for personasl encounters with Monica Lewinsky is just one of the many forms of embarrassing proof of that point.

Self-obsession is hardly conducive to protection of our national security.  Everything becomes a political calculation.  Threats are not considered seriously, extent to the extent that they have political implications, such as a "wag the dog" opportunity.  Do you remember the Afghanistan "Monica missiles," perfectly timed to distract from embarrassing deposition and grand jury testimony involving Bill Clinton's Lewinsky coverup?:

The cruise missile attack came three days after President Clinton, in a deposition with Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s legal team, finally admitted he had had an “inappropriate” relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton gave a brief television address on August 17 during which he seemed nearly out of control with rage. Lewinsky was returning to the grand jury for additional testimony on the day that Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan — giving rise to the nickname “Monica’s Missiles” for the attacks.

That Sandy "Pants" Berger is allowed to speak any public words on behalf of the former Clinton administration today, after having been convicted of stuffing classified national records about 9/11 into his pants and even destroying some of those records, shows you just how shameless the former Clinton administration was and is when it comes to matters of honesty, and how little value it places on truth and accuracy. 

When you want people to believe what you're saying, you don't put forward someone who has pled guilty to a crime of dishonesty (unauthorized removal and retention of classified material).

In fact, the former Clinton administration modus operandi -- to deny and attempt to cover up anything embarrassing, is still in full swing at this late date.  Members of the Democratic Underground are seeking to distort the historical record by "Google bombing" The Path to 9/11 (that is, attempting to dominate the first several pages of Google and Technorati search results about the movie). 

The protests of The Path to 9/11 from former members of the Clinton administration should be ignored as predictable, self-serving, and untrustworthy.

Besides, we know how we got to 9/11, if you really think about it.

Most Americans, not just its leaders, underestimated the threat from Islamic terrorists.  The Clinton White House took weak and ineffectual steps in response to repeated provocation.  And the Bush White House did not immediately launch a war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban upon taking office (there was no immediate known threat and certainly no national consensus to take dramatic action prior to 9/11). 

What history will ultimately judge us all for is not how we failed to adequately anticipate 9/11.  What it will judge us all for is what were are doing about Islamic terrorism today, now that we know the mortal threat we face.

Are you supporting America, it's president, and all decent, civilized nations in their attempts to stop Islamic terrorism, or are you seeking to undermine them at every turn for your own immediate political or economic advantage? 

Are you offering constructive suggestions and practical help in the war on terror, or are you engaging in pointless negativity

Are you lobbying on behalf of the soldiers who are fighting the terrorists, or on behalf of the terrorists?  Are you more concerned about how terrorists are doing at Guantanamo than you are about U.S. soldiers, including those facing court martial for one reason or another?  Have you already excused the terrorist while convicting the soldier?

Do you act as if you love your own country, or are you adding your voice to the forces trying to tear your nation apart from inside and outside?

Answer questions like these wisely and well, and the Path to 9/11 won't matter so much.  It will be left in history, and our future will be bright.  Answer these questions poorly, and history will convict us all.

__________________________

Like this?  Take a moment to Digg it.

Update 9/8/06:

Censoring

Update 9/9/06:  Recommended reading, laying out the evidence that the Clinton administration had several chances to kill Osama Bin Laden and chose not to: Dennis Byrne, Clinton's Artless Equivocation on 'The Path to 9/11'

NEWS & BUZZ

DAILY CARTOON click to enlarge
ANDERTOONS.COM DAILY CARTOONS

WEBSITES TO EXPLORE

  • Blogroll Me!

    "New!" websites were updated within the last 6 hours

SUPPORT OUR ADVERTISERS

GINA COBB

  • The 2006 Weblog Awards
  • "This is a great blog." (Jack Jones)
  • ". . . Gina Cobb is proof that not all lawyers deserve the death penalty." (Gringoman.com)(Gee -- thanks!)
  • "Let the charming and talented Gina Cobb show you how important rhetorical argument can be." (No-Pasaran.blogspot.com)