Dear Guys:
As a God-fearing American patriot, I absolutely insist that ABC refuse to air “The Jessica Lynch Story” as it currently plans to do on November 11. Although I haven’t seen it and don’t know what I’m talking about, I can say with confidence that it is wildly inaccurate, insulting, and upsetting to families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and have loved ones over there continuing to fight the war that ended last May.
The recent interviews with Jessica Lynch have underscored the fact that the US Government cynically and ruthlessly manipulated the facts of both her capture and subsequent rescue. She was built up to be a Rambo-esque hero when others actually did the fighting and dying. And the details of her “rescue” are similarly overblown. To single her out purely to give Americans a heroine in order to bolster support for Iraq is a travesty, and ABC is aiding and abetting in this government-based fraud…a fraud seized upon and perpetuated by the noted conservative media that has fallen in line behind the White House since the war began.
I do not believe for one moment–and I know my conservative friends, if I had any, would back me up on this–that the viewing public should be able to make up their own minds on this topic. I know what’s best. They don’t. And what’s best is that this PR scandal be terminated before it is allowed to air.
Instead, I recommend that ABC air a repeat of “Almost Golden: The Jessica Savitch Story,” the docudrama in which America’s first anchorwoman is portrayed as an alcoholic cokehead, which was no doubt most upsetting to her family, but they were probably liberals, so who gives a dámņ? The important thing is, it’s a biopic about a woman named Jessica, so it’s close enough. Failing that, you could run “Up Close and Personal,” which also tells the story of Jessica Savitch, but is a romantic comedy and nicely whitewashes all tragedy from her life.
Either way, I insist that you pull the Jessica Lynch biopic immediately. Until you do, I shall boycott the letters A, B and C, starting right now.
Sinerely,
Peter Dvid
• 
As a God-fearing American patriot, I absolutely insist that ABC refuse to air “The Jessica Lynch Story” as it currently plans to do on November 11. Although I haven’t seen it and don’t know what I’m talking about, I can say with confidence that it is wildly inaccurate, insulting, and upsetting to families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and have loved ones over there continuing to fight the war that ended last May.
Which no one said. Or is this another fact that gets dropped in the name of irony (like the actual name of the network).
The recent interviews with Jessica Lynch have underscored the fact that the US Government cynically and ruthlessly manipulated the facts of both her capture and subsequent rescue. She was built up to be a Rambo-esque hero when others actually did the fighting and dying. And the details of her “rescue” are similarly overblown. To single her out purely to give Americans a heroine in order to bolster support for Iraq is a travesty, and ABC is aiding and abetting in this government-based fraud…a fraud seized upon and perpetuated by the noted conservative media that has fallen in line behind the White House since the war began.
The US government did no such thing. It was media hype from an initial report that the Washington Post’s own sources said probably had errors. Dana Milbank, the writer, says the same thing. Here’s
The link in case you missed it before:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/012398.php
Spinsanity has more:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030528.html
Here’s the account of the ambulance driver from the Nicholas Kristof column:
The Iraqi doctors were enchanted by this blonde warrior, who as she recovered spent her time alternately crying and joking. I don’t know how much to credit the Iraqis’ claims that they gave her the best room in the hospital, that they went to the market to buy orange juice for her with their own money, that they brought clothes so that she would have something to wear. But they didn’t minimize Iraqi brutality. Indeed, they told of an execution of a handcuffed American male. (I’ve put a fuller account of this execution and of Ms. Lynch’s saga at nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)
The hospital staff also said that on the night of March 27, military officials prepared to kill Ms. Lynch by putting her in an ambulance and blowing it up with its occupants — blaming the atrocity on the Americans. The ambulance drivers balked at that idea. Eventually, the plan was changed so that a military officer would shoot Ms. Lynch and burn the ambulance. So Sabah Khazal, an ambulance driver, loaded her in the vehicle and drove off with a military officer assigned to execute her.
”I asked him not to shoot Jessica,” Mr. Khazal said, ”and he was afraid of God and didn’t kill her.” Instead, the executioner ran away and deserted the army, and Mr. Khazal said that he then thought about delivering Ms. Lynch to an American checkpoint. But there were firefights on the streets, so he returned to the hospital. (Ms. Lynch apparently never knew how close she had come to execution.)
By the morning of March 31, all of the Iraqi military at the hospital had fled. The hospital staff members said that they then told Ms. Lynch they would take her to the Americans the next day. That same night, the American special forces arrived.
Does anyone still think Jessica Lynch was in the Basra Hilton?
Hey Peter, some left wing censorship which I am sure you will agree with.
Film on Israeli Terror Victims Refused Airtime
Television Week reports on a new documentary film on Israeli victims of Arab terrorism, named “No Safe Place.” Though the film is now complete, its LA-based producers haven’t suceeded in getting it aired anywhere in the U.S. because the documentary doesn’t portray Palestinian victims.
Hollywood star Kelsey Grammer (“Frasier”) donated his time to narrate the film and calls the repeated rejections “political correctness run amok.”
Palestinian suffering makes the news nearly every day, and is rarely balanced by displays of Israeli pain. So someone finally devotes a film to Israeli suffering…and it’s rejected for being unbalanced!
Get involved to make sure this important film is aired in your area. Contact the film’s producers at the Jewish Television Network (staff@jewz.com), and plan a joint pitch to your local cable station.
For those of you against the war, here’s what you wanted to keep happening:
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/004579.php#004579
Look at the update to see what those numbers look like.
And yet, oddly enough, when Colin Powell was speaking before the UN and trying to make the case for war, he barely gave that any mention at all.
Orwell had the Ministry of Truth; we have conservative talk radio.
**For those of you against the war, here’s what you wanted to keep happening:
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/004579.php#004579
Look at the update to see what those numbers look like.**
Well G-ddámņ, that’s a stupid argument. To say that an opponent of the war wanted to keep Saddam killing dissidents is rather like saying that you (presumably a supporter of the war) want to keep American soldiers dying.
Think before you type, okay? Otherwise you’ll just sound like a jingoistic fool.
Right Wing = Business is everything. Profit is everything. The “Smart”/Rich people in charge get to make all the decisions for everyone.
Left Wing = Business should have guidelines and Profit isn’t everything. And the people that are in charge know that the people can make a decision for themselves.
Which is better? You make the decision….
Anthony Meadowcraft = close minded and a black and white vision of the world.
BORING!!!!!!
You mean the nonsense about special forces soldiers using blanks? That’s been disproven. Are going to claim her rape allegation is a lie?
I will. The man who wrote the book with her, something Bragg, has been fired from the NYTimes for plagery. And this book I’m sure was cleared by military intelligence so sure it’s gotta be true!
As for Reagan, no he wasn’t soley responsible for the AIDS epidemic but as president he didn’t do anything to help and he sure as hëll never, EVER said the word “HIV” or “AIDS” in public so he gave no comfort to those who have it.
He also is in no condition to defend himself because the smug bášŧárd cut funding for Alzheimer’s,which is the best proof of kharma I’ve ever seen.
And obviously the GOP isn’t for censorship….after all they let Pat Robertson suggest a nuclear device be used against the federal building that is the headquarters for the immigration dept. We know they’d never try to shut up a muslim who said it.
Michael Norton
\\To say that an opponent of the war wanted to keep Saddam killing dissidents is rather like saying that you (presumably a supporter of the war) want to keep American soldiers dying.
\\
The hawks, at least, understood that military action would result in both military and civilian casualties. The antiwar folks never did seem to wrap their brains around the fact that taking no action against Saddam and leaving him in power would perpetuate a regime of butchery, rape, torture, and murder.
A letter to Andrewsullivan.com:
“To the list of reasons you gave for the increasing extremism on the left, I would like to add one more, and arguably the primary reason. They had grown used to having a total monopoly on the information rationed out to the American people. With control of all network news and entertainment and most big-screen entertainment, the challenges to their opinions were only seen by their most conservative opponents, never by the “mainstream”. I put that work in quotes, because I mean the true center of the population, while the media has consistently used the term to mean the fairly extreme left wing.
Probably that is why they have reacted so strongly to the cancellation of The Reagans. This was an abandonment by their true heartland. It also explains the violence of their language when they talk about Fox News and talk radio. They react as OPEC would react to a new source that started selling 50 million barrels a day of petroleum at $2 per barrel.”
To say that an opponent of the war wanted to keep Saddam killing dissidents is rather like saying that you (presumably a supporter of the war) want to keep American soldiers dying.
The hawks, at least, understood that military action would result in both military and civilian casualties. The antiwar folks never did seem to wrap their brains around the fact that taking no action against Saddam and leaving him in power would perpetuate a regime of butchery, rape, torture, and murder.
The issue I had with the original post was the implied tone that I, someone who opposed the war, _wanted_ mass murder to continue, thus my reply.
And I daresay that most anti-war folks knew exactly what kind of right bášŧárd Saddam was. But changing the stated goals of going to war to fit the results (or lack of results as the case may be), namely proclaiming loudly that Saddam is hiding WMD and he may use them at any moment to proclaiming even more loudly that, no really, it was about freeing Iraq from a dictator, is unacceptable. Yes, I believe that Saddam had to be taken down eventually, but with the leveraged coercion of the global community – not by a unilateral action decided by administrators who were heedless of consequence and myopic enough to not consider that things might not go as optimistically planned.
What especially annoys me most about members of the right claiming that this was a justified war is that suddenly, they ignore the initial WMD argument or bury it with demagoguery and say it was always about Iraqi freedom. (“There were mass graves! People are free of a tyrant! If we hadn’t invaded, Saddam would still be butchering his people!”) The hypocrisy of the argument reeks beyond the pale. If that were truly true, there are bunches of other, more brutal, more easily pacified regimes, that could have been attended to, but weren’t. The fact that the country chosen to be “liberated” happened to be oil-rich, and that spin-doctors of the administration tried to tie Saddam to 9/11 as soon as they were able, knowing full well that there was no likely connection, just irks me and others who share my stance.
If W. had stated from the beginning that this was a war of liberation, I still wouldn’t have supported unilateral action, but I would have respected the rationale (and the man) more. As it stands now, W. is a dishonest salesman who sold a bill of goods that said “WMD,” but delivered nothing except a bill of mounting costs — both human and material.
As such, the American citizenry should be very wary before buying anything from him again.
AnthonyX = Likes to make personal attacks. Doesn’t like to argue on the facts.
What I said was true from a certain point of view. The thing is I do like some right wing views but I think that they go to far with trying to “spin” everything to there advantage.
I also like the left wing views because they want to look out for the little guy.
Anyways… later
For Sasha and the rest.
Bush on Iraq:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.
I am the little guy.
No leftist has looked out for me; none of them are looking out for me. I look out for me. I bloody well want them to not try to look out for me. They should mind their own business… not mine.
CJA
For those of you against the war, here’s what you wanted to keep happening:
http://www.vodkapundit.com/archives/004579.php#004579
Straw men are cool.
And I suppose we want to murders to continue in every other repressive government in the world? We WANT China killing dissidents, right? Because we sure as hëll aren’t stopping them.
What I meant by looking out for the little guy is this. Having Universal Health Care and things like that.
Anthony M
I apologize for the outburst.
Look I consider myself a centrist from Canada no less ,which makes me left of just about everybody.
And though I hate the extreme right i REALLY hate the left.
Growing up in Trudeaupia I see the great many negatives of the left side.
Alan Moore, Grant Morrison and Warren Ellis all similarly explained why there politics are what they are. Growing up in Thatcherite England led them to the left.
I have a similar story.
And you are wrong about your descriptions. They are of another time. Its 2003 and three people, lets move on.
What I meant by looking out for the little guy is this. Having Universal Health Care and things like that.
You want me to pay for some šhìŧfáçëd goon who didn’t take care of his own lifestyle when he was fully able to eat healthy and exercise and who should be held perfectly responsible for his own downfall?
That’s crap, man.
Why should my money be waylaid to some other guy who’s no more deserving of the benefit of earning cash than I?
CJA
**For Sasha and the rest.
Bush on Iraq:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.**
An excellent point, however, it falls apart in the case of Iraq. Considering that our own intelligence agencies knew for a good while that Saddam had no WMDs, and, in fact, had no viable weapons program to develop any shows that there was no imminent or foreseeable long-term threat to America and her interests. There was no compelling need to invade Iraq.
The fact that solid evidence showing that Iraq was not a threat was casually dismissed (and that knowingly-wrong intelligence was used to “prove” that Iraq was a threat) is irresponsible at best, criminally actionable at worst.
And with respect, North Korea has all but sent out spam of its intention to develop a nuclear arsenal. Yet despite this truth, the Bush administration has all but ignored this very real, very serious, and very solvable threat to America. If N. Korea actually becomes a nuclear power, the world will become a much more dangerous place, and the blame will fall squarely on W.’s shoulders.
“And you bring up an interesting point: If the Reagan biopic is slander, then let the GOP braintrust prove it the way a society valuing free speech allows it to: In court.”
Well, as an astronomer, I am greatly offended by the creative license that Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer took in the filming of “Armageddon”. Perhaps I’ll sue them for mental distress.
Sheesh! A liberal’s answer to everything is “sue”. I guess that’s because they know that by and large they own the legal system in this country. Thank god the Supreme Court still has some sensible heads in it. Otherwise Al Gore might be issuing an executive order right now stating that school children everywhere be required to watch the Reagan Bio-pic.
“And you bring up an interesting point: If the Reagan biopic is slander, then let the GOP braintrust prove it the way a society valuing free speech allows it to: In court.”
Well, as an astronomer, I am greatly offended by the creative license that Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer took in the filming of “Armageddon”. Perhaps I’ll sue them for mental distress.
Sheesh! A liberal’s answer to everything is “sue”. I guess that’s because they know that by and large they own the legal system in this country. Thank god the Supreme Court still has some sensible heads in it. Otherwise Al Gore might be issuing an executive order right now stating that school children everywhere be required to watch the Reagan Bio-pic.
Anyone with an axe-to-grind’s answer is to sue. Look at Bill O’Rilley and his utterly frivolous lawsuit against Al Franken. Conservatives are just as bad as liberals. And to bring something to court as a lawsuit isn’t necessarilly a bad thing. It is very occasionally the only viable method of achieving redress for a wrong. The problem is when people use this last-resort legal tool first and for frivolous aims.
ARMAGEDDON did not pretend to be a fact-based documentary, and nor did the REAGAN miniseries. They both advertised themselves as a movie — entertainment. Accusing the REAGAN movie as being historically inaccurate is like accusing the same about the movie PEARL HARBOR. Should that film have been pulled or have a crawl appear at the bottom of the frame every 10 minutes informing the moviegoing audience that PEARL HARBOR is not a historically accurate portrayal of the events of 12/7/1941? Of course not. People aren’t that dumb. I don’t think they’re that dumb about the REAGAN movie either.
And I really have to disagree with the assessment that the left “owns” the legal system. From what I’ve seen, if anyone owns the legal system, it’s large corporations or people of wealth, and they tend to be right of center politically. Also, considering that the decision of “BUSH V. GORE” appeared more partisan that impartial, sensible heads had nothing to do with it.
An excellent article looking at HBO’s production of Tony Kushner’s Angels in America in light of the Reagans brouhaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/arts/16RICH.html?pagewanted=1