Jeff Jacoby, one of the few right-winged voices at the Boston Globe, wrote a piece about Bush hatred from the left, and made some noises about the Brit film, "Death of a President" which pretty much pissed me off. You can read his editorial here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/And here is the reply I just wrote to him--I will be surprised if I get a response, and even more surprised if he ever publishes it:
In re: your op-ed piece about Bush hatred, it appears to me that you are only showing one side of the issue.
Even now, Democrats are waging a war against ABC and Disney to block the showing of "Path to 9/11" a ridiculously skewed film about the WTC and Pentagon tragedies, a film written by a "good friend" of Rush Limbaugh, in an attempt to depict Democrats as a party intricately involved with the disasters themselves, and libelous to the point of complete and outright fabrications.
And yet, some would praise this particular film (Path to 9/11) and not condemn it for the piece of propaganda that it is. If you and any other critic or pundit hopes to win any over to your opinion, you need to explain how the bias on the mainstream media's part over the past 6 years has kept so many secrets of this administration away from the public, and actually made it look like the Democratic Party was a culprit instead of the defender of our rights. So many secrets have been kept under wraps in media outlets owned by powerful Republicans, that the only "honest" political news has to be gotten from British, Canadian, Australian and other foreign sources and underground operations.
The fact is, during the entire Clinton administration, the Republican hatred kept Clinton from doing much of anything in launching a strike against terrorism, and fomented vitriol against Clinton that often made it impossible to initiate any action. The fact that Congress was completely under Republican control during the last 6 of his years in the White House is often not mentioned when the right starts attacking Clinton for things he might have done, if he had had the support of both the House and the Senate.
And yet you attack a film produced, not in the United States, but in England, outside of the general sphere of influence of the current regime in Washington--perhaps one of the few times when utter frustration to censor an independent voice has given rise to an all-out effort to keep the American public from seeing it. It is definitely an eye-opener to see the difference between the reaction to what is already touted as a "Mockumentary" (Death of a President) and to "Path to 9/11" which Republicans are hoping the American public will see as the "truth" rather than the same style and category of "Mockumentary" as the other film.
If I recall correctly, much controversy was spread in 2004 when Michael Moore made and distributed "Fahrenheit 911" and efforts by the right were made to discredit Moore and his film, and yet once the film was in American theatres, the protests of the right subsided, and from what I recall, no one on the right dared to file a libel suit against Moore and his footage. At least at that time, American civil liberties were still apparent, and the right of free speech was still a cherished one. It is intriguing to see how the right continues to let our civil rights deteriorate and in one instance calling the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper" when the protests are from the left instead of the right wing.
I will give you your right to dislike the film "Death of a President" and allow you to let your opinion be known on it, but adding that the sin of omission you have made is deleterious to the American public as just one more thinly veiled attempt by the right to portray the left as consummate evil and the Bush administration as anything but.
PLEASE! Give me opinions to stroke my ego!!! :)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
