Pierre Legrand’s Pink Flamingo Bar

This hits the nail right on its head. God it hurts to approvingly quote a left wing blog…but the left knows how to treat allies.

MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics   What’s also new is how Disney got no backup at all from the right-wing. No Republicans in office came to the company’s defense, the RNC offered no online petition, and there was little to no internet organizing on behalf of ABC’s film. Virtually no right-wing pundits defended the network, or the film in any meaningful way. The open disloyalty to right-wing allies is a really bad decision on the part of the right, since it means that if you back the right-wing, it’s not clear that they will back you. In such a situation, talented people considering a movement career will simply say ‘I don’t need this shit, I’m going to go make money in the private sector’.

We finally have the perfect vehicle to tell the broad public a story that has NOT been told yet and instead of backing the producers up we have the Right Wing measuring a self declared Dramatization against reality. And on the basis of it not achieving perfection a bunch of them run screaming off the cliff. It is hilarious…almost. To these conservatives if perfection is not achieved in the telling of the story of Clinton era mistakes then it is better not to tell the story at all.

I must have missed the part where the otherside (our side) of the story has been told so well by the MSM that we can now be picky about how the stories are told. So now we have gone from wishing the Mainstream Media might sometimes tell the otherside of the story to demanding that if they are not able to recreate reality not tell the story at all. Yea that makes a whole lot of sense. Better not to hear how this wasn’t all the doing of the Bush administration if it means we compress events. Better not to hear how we dropped the ball for years before President Bush got into office rather than to make the Clintonistas a bit uncomfortable by not being able to re-recreate a reality that shifts everytime the Democrats and the Left tell it.

If ABC pulls the movie it won’t only be because of the actions of the left wing but also because of the actions of these folks. We didn’t support them when they needed it. Thanks to ThinkProgress. 0

John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint. [NYPost, 9/8/06  ]

James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor:The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch “The Reagans.” [OpinionJournal, 9/7/06  ]

Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog:One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so. [Hugh Hewitt blog, 9/6/06  ]

Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor:When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account. [Fox, 9/8/06 0]

Captain’s Quarters blog:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point. [Captain Quarter’s blog, 9/7/06  ]

Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator:Look, “The Path to 9/11? is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen. [CNN, 9/8/06 0]

Seth Liebsohn, Claremont Institute fellow and produce of Bill Bennett’s radio show: I oppose this miniseries as well if it is fiction dressed up as fact, creates caricatures of real persons and events that are inaccurate, and inserts quotes that were not uttered, especially to make a point that was not intended. [Glenn Greewald’s blog, 9/7/06 0]

Richard Miniter, conservative author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror”:If people wanted to be critical of the Clinton years there’s things they could have said, but the idea that someone had bin Laden in his sights in 1998 or any other time and Sandy Berger refused to pull the trigger, there’s zero factual basis for that. [CNN, 9/7/06 0]

Brent Bozell, founder and president of the conservative Media Research Center:I think that if you have a scene, or two scenes, or three scenes, important scenes, that do not have any bearing on reality and you can edit them, I think they should edit them. [MSNBC, 9/6/06  ]

Bill O’Reilly, Fox News pundit:Ok, we’re talking about the run up to 9-11 and this movie that they’re re-cutting now — and they should because it puts words in the mouth of real people, actors playing real people that they didn’t say and its wrong. [O’Reilly radio show, 9/8/06]

The problem is when perfect, being the enemy of the good, freezes us into silence. There is absolutely no way to recreate the reality that existed over the time this movie dramatizes. Do we then avoid telling the story because we cannot have it perfectly right? Do we imagine that the Democrats and the left are avoiding telling an imperfect tale? Do we really believe that the general public will understand they are not hearing both sides of the story if our side refuses to utter a word that is not perfection? Doesn’t anyone understand that instead of believing they are not hearing both sides of the story the general public believes it must be the truth since we refuse to tell our side?

The truth is Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright   were in fact extremely timid in prosecuting the war on terror. Does the right believe otherwise? The truth is Sandy Berger and the Clinton Administration   did in fact pass on attempts to assassinate Bin Laden (ht Macs Mind   ). Does the right believe otherwise?

We treated ABC shabbily. It was almost as if a bad child having finely done something good but not perfect came to their family expecting to get a pat on the head and instead got a kick in the ass. Thanks guys.

Others blogging this topic.

Today 9/13/2006 the Washington Post gets the Vapors about Path 0.

Macs Mind has a terrific post that hits right to the heart of the matter  .

Blog for All  Ã‚ Moderate Voice  Ã‚ Unclaimed Territory 0

Technorati Tags: ABC  , PATH to 9/11  , Bin Laden  , Clinton  , Sandy Berger  , Pajama Media  , Thinkprogress  , My DD  , Iraq 0, CIA  , disney  , eiger  

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Stumble It!