“According to several accounts, the American ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, repeatedly asked Washington for additional security at the embassy in Nairobi, including in an April 1998 letter directly to Albright. Bushnell was ignored. [6] In “Against All Enemies,” Richard Clarke writes about an exchange with Albright several months after the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in August 1998. “What do you think will happen if you lose another embassy?” Clarke asked. “The Republicans in Congress will go after you.” “First of all, I didn’t lose these two embassies,” Albright shot back. “I inherited them in the shape they were.” According to Clarke, Albright, realizing that Clarke was a friend, smiled coyly at him. Albright was sworn in as Secretary of State more than 18 months before the embassies she inherited were bombed.”

Sounds a lot like, ‘you got war with the army you got’.

I spent two years explaining that Bush did not let the Bin Laden family go, and that it was Richard Clarke who authorized their air travel during a restricted time-an action I agree with, reagrdless of who authorized it-after Farhenheit 9/11.

The difference now is that none of the central characters are in the process of seeking reelection…so let the crap fly.

For every instance of ‘creative’ scripting, there will be ten factual pieces that the clinton defenders will have to address. No one is going to be quoting the film as they were Moore’s opus. No director is going to be sitting in the republican convention hall. Less than 10% of the audience of Farhenheit 9/11 will ever see this piece.

Imagine the fans/believers of Moore seeing MM’s agitprop in 94, enthralled. They are easy to identify, they are the same people who saw the previews of ‘flight 93′ and ‘WTC’ and shouted:

Too soon.

This film is going to enrage those who care to watch it. With or without the quotes. Posner has a book-While america slept-which is the most descriptive name of the American policy regarding terrorism from 1991-9/11. I have heard of all the failures of Bush and his 9 months, and now the public will get to see the failures of Clinton and 8 years. I forgive both gentleman, but not the people who have failed to see Bush’s role as consistent with Clinton’s.

I didn’t have to see this film, to know the dems are soft of national defense, but by the way the clintonistas are squirming this makes the kerry swift boating look more a like a macaca moment. Truth hurts, especially when you have made your existence tolerable by telling everyone you know that you did try, and a simple piece of propoganda tears away the facade, from friends, and from themselves.

Here is how Noah Cowan, one of the film festival’s coordinators, describes the film:

“Death of a President” is “a classic cautionary tale.” Well, yes, Bush’s assassination is “harrowing,” he says, but what the film is really about is “how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush’s divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America.”.

Got it, thanks.

Here’s a link to a sample of the outrage expressed by the Democrats:

I don’t like fabrication of facts in any case but would certainly argue that playing fast and loose with the facts in a supposed documentary is the greater sin.

http://pollingreport.com/terror.htm#Pew

“In general, how well do you think the U.S. government is doing in reducing the threat of terrorism: very well, fairly well, not too well, or not at all well?”

74%-very/fairly well.

“What concerns you more about the government’s anti-terrorism policies — that they have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country, OR, that they have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties?”

55%-not far enough, up from 46% in Jan 06.

Welcome to the gop strategy for 2006.

Are you safer now than you were 5 years ago?

Their logic is that they want to exploit the fear of an imminent attack, and the media has been throwing out poll numbers which lead dems to an illogical conclusion-that they are considered an equivalent in the public opinion in regards to fighting terrorism is simply not the case.

They discuss it at their own peril, but I must question the wisdom of going after a “we can fight terrorism better”, when the polls don’t support this belief. In their obsessing over Clinton/Berger/Albright actual roles, they are simply confirming some larger public opinions.

“In an August 2006 PSRA/Pew Research Center poll, 57 percent said they would be concerned that Democrats would weaken the country’s efforts to combat terrorism if Democrats took control of Congress. Forty percent were not concerned.”

This movie is not going to help that perception, and will likely expand the seperation. (Funny, becuase this was a pew research poll, one of Albright’s own employers.)

Rove was straightfoward on his staement that the 06 election would be about national security. Regardless of the actual movie that does come out, the discussion is about willingness and preparedness to make hard decisions and the current dems do not inspire that, outside their 40% base.

If you make a distorted movie, you are a guest of honor at the democratic convention. If you make a distorted tv drama, then you should be censored.

The same democrats who whine now, would be silent if the movie planted words in the mouth of the current admin. In recent history, several dem leaders have ‘misrepresented words/actions’ about rove’s involvement in the Plame investigation, but since it is the news media doing it, it matters little.