September 11, 2006
The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times
The subject of 9-11 is frought with pathos. It is both a sad remembrance and an act of war. But, on the 5th anniversary of this tragic day, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) has decided to show a production of a "Docu-Drama" called "The Path To 9-11". Now, in and of itself, that is nothing remarkable, the history of the socalled "docu-drama" is long and comical for its historical inaccuracies and/or outright fiction, witness the productions of "Death Of A President" in England for example (which many have defended on the grounds of "free speech").
Yet, let a shibboleth of the left be challenged (Clinton was a terrific - though perhaps oversexed president) and watch the fur fly. The reaction of much of the left is almost comical, nay, it is entirely comical and I'll take a few snippits from here and there to prove my point.
First up my friend Marc Cooper (a self identified "progressive") posts "The ABC's of Panderning" in which he states:
L.A. Times media columnist Tim Rutten perfectly nails the shameless shlockmeisters at ABC who think it's just spiffy to capitalize on the pain of the 5th anniversary 9/11 to broadcast one more manufactured piece of dreck -- a two part "docudrama" on the Twin Tower attacks powered by blatant right-wing spin.Now, Marc is a friend of mine, and my 'blogfather' if you will and I highly respect him and his blog (though that does not apply to some of his more vociferous commenters). But gee could the rhetoric be more appalling, could the prose be a little more turgid? Understand please, as a progressive, Marc is no friend of the Bushes or the Republicans, but having said that, he is no friend of the Democrats either.
More amusing (if that is indeed the word) are some of the comments from that blog entry. This one for example:
NeoDude Says:Oh gosh, "Right-Wing nationalists." Codewords for fascists perhaps? Oh, the humanity!
September 9th, 2006 at 9:14 amWhen has Right-Wing Nationalists (SALUTE!!!), in any Western tradition, not exploit a national tragedy?
How about this one (if you are a fan of conspiracy theories you will LOVE this one):
r. l. c. Says:Can you say "off base?"
September 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am
It really is obvious what happened here. These projects don’t get made overnight and when ABC Entertainment (NOT the news division) OK’ed this Bush was riding high - just been reelected and had increased majorities in both houses of Congress. And what were the pundits saying? Why the GOP wiould be ruling the roost for a long time to come and the Dems were in “Disarray” (a town near Vegas, I believe). So why not get in bed with right wing crazies? They would be in position to help the Mouse with issues like Intellectual Property and Media Ownership. Its not personal, just business.(Hell Robert Iger was a Clinton Contributor, as were a lote of ABC/Disney Execs)
Sure the Dems would complain but what could they do? Well its now two months from an election that will probably produce a tsunami for them and the miniseries don’t look so hot now does it? That is what happens when you listen to experts!
But Marc's commenters are rational compared to others (although that is obviously not saying much). For example, Ann Althouse has a terrific post on some of these left-wing rantings here and she has a link pointing to something called "AMERICAblog" with some suggestions to sue, boycott etc Disney, ABC and Apple because of the so called docu-drama. A sample:
Certainly we're going to be live-blogging the show, Sunday and Monday. I'd appreciate those of you in Australia and New Zealand, if the show does air there shortly, please give us feedback as to what they cut and what's still in the show? It will give us a window as to what defamatory material Disney/ABC insisted on keeping in the show, which will help the lawsuits and our organizing.Aren't these the same guys who "demand" freedom of speech on campuses and other venues? Does that apply only to speech from their side? Funny, I thought that speech was free for ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. I guess not. But I digress, as funny as the posting is, some of the comments (over 380 of them) are even funnier (or would stranger be a better word choice?) For example, this little bon mot:Secondly, when the show airs in the US, if Disney/ABC still run it, I want to be sure a number of us are live-blogging it to list the defamation and the errors. If Disney/ABC insist on making a cartoon out one of the blackest days in America history, then we will hold them responsible."
I think iTunes is a really good place to hit Steve Jobs and Apple. It is direct and to the point, and it is not platform-based.Wow, but this is mild compared to:It is OUTRAGEOUS that they are offering this as a free download.
They would notice immediately if there was a slack-off in sales.
I have already written to Steve Jobs and the iTunes crew about this.
samia | 09.09.06 - 6:38 pm |
It appears that the governments use of the MSM for propaganda distribution is becoming extremely transparent. If we, as Americans, cannot stop this from happening, or becoming any worse, then we have lost the control of our public servents, and more drastic actions must be taken. Boycotts/leaflets/emails/videos/ demonstations etc.Joe Danger, what a nom-de-pixel that is. Ok lets see, the government controls the MSM enough to make it a propaganda arm of the Bushies. So, how did the NYTimes sneak by with those "expose's" of our efforts to listen in to Al Qaeda or monitor financial transactions? Hmmmmm?
Joe Danger | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 6:43 pm |"
OK, how about this one:
As well as an organized and long-term boycott of Disney and ABC, we should use this opportunity to call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.OK, now that really is scary. The fairness doctrine was less about fairness than it was a way to silence the broadcasters (radio and TV) from airing any "political" speech because the so called doctrine would allow opposing views time on air. General Managers would have a scheduling nightmare and we'd loose talk radio and have to go back to elevator music. No thanks! One more reason not to elect Democrats or liberal Republicans. Oh, and by the way, the above commenter's nom-de-pixel is "nervesofsteel" More like "nerves-of-tinfoil." What a frightened little bunny!
nervesofsteel | 09.09.06 - 6:50 pm |"
The latest (well, maybe not the absolute latest) lefty "talking point" (I'm being generous here you understand) is that this is NOT the same as Michael Moore's fatuous "Farenheit 9/11" which everyone now says was a "polemic." A polemic?
WordNetReally, seems to me that at the time many on the left didn't see any controversy at all, it was truth and a terrific slam on the Bush Administration (note: Marc Cooper, always his own man, saw it different and the vast majority of his commenters agreed - at the time, not now; now it's just a polemic).
po·lem·ic (p-lmk): adj : of or involving dispute or controversy [syn: polemical] n 1: a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology) [syn: polemicist, polemist] 2: a controversy (especially over a belief or dogma)
Again, I digress, the whole point of this little exercise is to point out the utter insanity of the left in regards to this docudrama. Reminds me of the "revised" words of the Bard: "The left doth protest too much, methinks."
Cross posted at The Real Ugly American
Update, I've only scratched the surface of the left's response to "The Pathway to 9-11" but James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has looked at how "The Left Remembers 9-11." It's an excellent read and I'm in awe of his article.
Posted by GM Roper at September 11, 2006 08:04 AM | TrackBackI can't handle the hypocrisy of the left.
It's just fine and dandy for Michael Moore to release a money-maker in the theaters and expound his brand of leftism, but it's not at all acceptable for ABC to show a FREE docudrama, with all the usual disclaimers (I'm guessing on that last part).
Of course, anything that doesn't fuel Bush Derangement Syndrome absolutely must be forbidden to air.
Now, for the real issue...The left doesn't want anything to air which might remind us of who did what on 9/11. We might become "Islamophobic"! Furthermore, we are AT WAR--the enemy is supposed to be demonized.
Posted by Always On Watch at September 10, 2006 05:49 PM
Great post, LOL!
And true... Conservatives will register our disapproval while acknowledging the right of our opponents to free speech.
The left, on the other hand, breaks down into a quagmire of a hundred thousand scheming cabals fantacizing different ways to gag the opposition, and their political leaders get into a frenzy trying to misuse their congressional authority to stifle free speech.
I think an apt title for a book about today's Democrats would be "Party Without A Conscience".
Posted by Seth at September 10, 2006 05:50 PM
I was right! ABC ran a disclaimer crawl at the top of the screen right before the film started. I'm watching it.
Posted by Always On Watch at September 10, 2006 06:02 PM
Ah yes ... the Hipocracy Party (AKA the Democrats). Everyone has the right to free speech just so long as the message reinforces BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). We really do need to remove these people from office. They are a major threat to our liberty, and have no place in a free society.
I'm a registered Independent, and these censorship antics have driven me solidly into the ranks of those voting straight Republican in this next election. May the Democrats go down to crushing defeat. I also don't like a one-party system either, but the alternative of putting them into office is magnitudes worse, IMHO.
Posted by Vulgorilla at September 11, 2006 09:30 AM
I watched the first part of the movie. Usually I don't stay up that late, but I had no trouble staying awake to watch every minute.
Expecting CAIR to object. Maybe they already have; I'll check CAIR's site.
I'll be watching the second part tonight.
Posted by Always On Watch at September 11, 2006 10:15 AM
G.M., the only sense that a rational person can make of liberals is that liberals are not rational and make no sense.
Consider these quotes from Ann Coulter. They spell out the hopelessness of dialogue with liberals.
“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
"Liberals hate America, they hate 'flag-wavers,' they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
"Democrats cannot conceive of 'hate speech' towards Christians because, in their eyes, Christians always deserve it."
"One begins to appreciate why Democrats aren't wild about any political system that permits people to vote. Liberals would have no chance of advancing their bizarre policy agenda if Americans were allowed to have a say in the matter. So they manufacture phony 'constitutional rights' in which the Constitution always sounds suspiciously similar to the ideological agenda of the ACLU."
"This is liberalism's real strength. It is no longer susceptible to reductio ad absurdium arguments. Before you can come up with a comical take on their worldview, some college professor has already written an article advancing the idea."
"Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said any assumption that the US would not use force against North Korea would be a mistake. Such bellicosity frightens liberals. The left's reaction to nutty despots is: he might hit me, so I'll be nice. Rumsfeld's idea is: He'll hit me? Maybe I'll hit him. The beauty of that approach cannot be denied."
"'Stupid' means one thing: 'threatening to the interests of the Democratic Party.' The more Conservative the Republican, the more vicious and hysterical the attacks on his intelligence will be."
"Much of the left's hate speech bears greater similarity to a psychological disorder than to standard political discourse. The hatred is blinding, producing logical contradictions that would be impossible to sustain were it not for the central element faith plays in the left's new religion. The basic tenet of their faith is this: Maybe they were wrong on facts and policies, but they are good and conservatives are evil. You almost want to give it to them. It's all they have left."
"No matter what the evidence, liberals insist that only their tender ministrations are capable of calming murderous dictators. Negotiation and engagement are said to 'work' because, after Democrats spend years dillydallying with lunatic despots who threaten America, eventually a Republican president comes in and threatens aggressive military action. In a fascinating fifty-year pattern -- completely indiscernible to liberals -- murderous despots succumb to 'engagement' shortly after a Republican president threatens to bomb them. This allows liberals to hail years of impotent negotiation and engagement as a foreign policy 'win'."
Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really believe. Meanwhile, it is a source of constant alarm to conservatives that the public will not understand what they really believe."
"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder."
Posted by Woody at September 11, 2006 05:56 PM
I think the objections are fairly simple, though distressing, to understand. Many people have a framework of how things have gone wrong. The data in this film doesn't fit that framework. Therefore, it must be the data, not the framework that is wrong.
All people with opinions do this to a certain extent, and few of us change our minds overnight. What is worrisome from the left is that they do not seem to be affected at all by contrary information. Reasonable people, when confronted with something completely at odds with their beliefs, take more modest positions. They resolve to explore the data more closely. They seek out advice from people they know to be intelligent. They might modify their views somewhat, acknowledging that their favored position has some soft spots, even if it is basically truer than the alternatives. They examine the assumptions that went into their original framework.
We do read some folks on the left who do these things. But not enough, not by a long shot. Most of what we see is a continual retrenchment in the old positions, refusing to acknowledge any possibility of wrong.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at September 11, 2006 06:09 PM
Excellent GM.
Posted by Raven at September 11, 2006 06:25 PM
Hiya GM!..u made my day by commenting at my site!..thank u for your support during Sept 11..too bad the lefties in collusion with the Mainstream mafia and now the networks chose 9-11 to defame and distort yet again..and this surprises us WHY?..great post!
Posted by Angel at September 11, 2006 07:43 PM
AVI - I read your comment at "captainsquarters" after his post of his opening speech at the recent panel discussion he attended. It was so well put, I think I'll give you the biggest kudos of the week and copy it here as I think GM, Woody and others will see the wisdom in it:
"I'm glad you brought up the Civil War in the discussion. It is a salutary reminder that wars are seldom clean, straightforward affairs. The war in Iraq has been judged according to a standard unknown in history, both in the expectations of moral rightness and the execution of the war. Our moral justification is great, but no nation behaves entirely without evil , and no enemy is completely without some fair complaint.
But noting that there is no black and white in the world of nations and conflict does not mean that all grays are the same. Refusing to make such distinctions is to refuse to make moral distinctions in the real world at all.
There is much speculation on the right of what drives these false dichotomies of the left. Is it pure partisanship? Is it a failure to understand moral distinctions? Does the hope of swaying the political debate cause people to make statements in more extreme form than reason supports? Are there hidden motivations which prevent certain facts from being recognised?
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps there are never going to be more than a few who honestly disagree and seek to discover the truth in each other's presence."
Again, kudos, sir. And thank you for a cogent and reasonable point.
Posted by Oyster at September 12, 2006 10:19 AM
