Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 12, 2006 3:58:14 GMT -5
The second scarlet letter
By John Burtis
Monday, September 11, 2006
Bill Clinton and his band of oppressive thugs were at it once again, dispatching yet another scarlet letter to ABC on Friday demanding that the docudrama be pulled from viewing.
"As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings," it began, according to the New York Post (Click here), but when will Mr. Clinton's wearying assault on democracy end?
"Do the right thing for the country and pull this despicable work of fiction from the air," gibbered an obviously unhinged Jay Carson, one of about a million Clinton spokesmen working feverishly to kill this somewhat fictionalized account.
After all, docudramas do fill in the blanks, Jay, with some contrived dialogue, old boy.
And the latest free for all in this whole tawdry l'affaire Clinton stems from the supposed actors' concerns over the alleged veracity in their lines, again according to the same story in the Post, which has got to be the first time this has ever happened in a TV mini-series. Then imagine Patrick Swayze complaining about the obvious inaccuracies found in that monumental docudrama about the Civil War, "North and South." And picture the necessary changes if absolute truth were to hobble the writing of that "epic." Or in re-writing the "Winds of War" and so on.
Although it appears from the article in the Post, that there was enough improvisation from the actors involved, especially Mr. Keitel, to mask the entire Clinton involvement in the lapses in 9/11 to the point of being nearly unrecognizable anyway.
And yet the Great Prevaricator has fallen victim to a series of highly visible temper tantrums - the like we have not seen since canings were routinely administered in the US Senate - in his ham fisted attempts to curtail free speech and expression, suppress ABC, and to can "The Path to 9/11."
Meanwhile, debuting at the Toronto Film Festival, is that fabulous new British movie entitled "Death of a President." This is the fictionalized cinematic account of the assassination of President George Bush, which has drawn absolutely no response from former President Clinton, his boisterous group of slavish lackeys, and the Democratic Party, who opine so vociferously over the ABC project almost daily, or is it hourly, I can't keep track anymore.
Luckily for this band of cry babies, no such movie was ever made about the Boy President. Imagine the intense brouhaha which would have accompanied any such plan to do so during the brazen catch-penny reign of Ms. Lewinsky's sleek dandified paramour.
But, as the Canada's National Post points out, since, "It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic," it's just fine with the anti-war crowd, the Democrats, and the uproarious Clinton gang. And if it features the murder of a Republican president, all the better, why complain, and why not.
Then, while we're still digesting that off-color news, we learn that America's most celebrated left-wing activist, Cindy Sheehan, whose new book "Peace Mom" is due almost out any day now, has fantasized about going back in time and killing President Bush as an infant, thanks to an exclusive in Radaronline (Click here).
This long strange and just plain perverse narrative alone is enough to make the degenerate pillars of the Democratic Party - those pettifogging stalwarts in NAMBLA, the sainted felons, and the child molesting clique - as well as the anti-war crowd, crow with joy at its telling.
But again, the venomous Clintons, the bootlickers on their staff and their toadies in the press, the party apologists, and the lockstep Democratic leadership, remain mum on this blasphemous issue. After all, one more lurid tale of presidential assassination, no matter how depraved in nature, is just fine with the villainous opposition.
But, whoa there, me hearties, let's not forget that immortal repartee between that blindly progressive media swell and silk tied outré Clinton parrot, Chris Matthews and his guest, the famous writer, saloon keeper, necessary room barrister, and self-described genius, Malachy McCourt.
Said the blindly antagonistic Matthews to his guest, "Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?"
Mr. McCourt replied, "Capital punishment? I think that if, if I've got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I've got to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment."
Mr. Matthews replied, smiling, "You just sound like a liberal Democrat, Malachy."
Again, a mouthy, smiling liberal commentator on MSNBC has shown us all too well the thread which runs throughout much of "liberal" thinking -- the hoped for trial and execution of President Bush -- as the enemy.
So, while the progressives and the liberals openly speak and write about the death of the sitting President, and President Clinton uses the color of his office to attempt the derailment of a television drama he fears may damage a legacy already on life support, resulting from his own half-hearted, helpless, and slip-shod attempts to protect America from the terror stalking us today, Mr. Bush remains silent.
Even though this program, which has yet to air, must also hold Mr. Bush partially responsible for the errors which led to 9/11, it cannot fault him for the response to this attack.
While Mr. Bush knows that movies, books, and imbecilic commentators and the like - including that array of brilliant scholars like Randi Rhodes and her sidekick Rachel Maddow, and their witty assassination skit from Air America - are speaking of his murder, he still remains quiet.
However, President Clinton, who cannot hope to keep quiet, has openly, and in concert with the highest levels of the Democratic leadership, attempted to suppress the activities of a major television network, ABC, and he has employed his full coterie of enthralled sycophants in this unseemly and all too public enterprise.
Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton's final letter, this second scarlet letter, may be his undoing.
His constant drumming may serve to drive people to their television screens in greater numbers to view the benighted show. And should any of the individuals plunked down in front of their small screens see Mr. Clinton and his cabinet in more of the dawning light of truth, following his verdant vulgar screaming conniptions, it may help move his tottering legacy faster along the way to its eventual desuetude.
At long last, the very people who Mr. Bill Clinton is professing to protect from the grave and horrific damage a mini-series can cause them may come at long last to realize that his care is not being lavished on them but, as it always is in the grotesque Clinton inertial frame, upon himself, his tarnished legacy, and the mirror of history.
Sadly, too may of us can easily recall the creaky rambling funhouses attached to those small cheap itinerant carnivals of our youth and their distorted mirrors -- mirrors where the Clinton legacy and Mr. Clinton's actions against terror can only be seen in their proper focus.
By John Burtis
Monday, September 11, 2006
Bill Clinton and his band of oppressive thugs were at it once again, dispatching yet another scarlet letter to ABC on Friday demanding that the docudrama be pulled from viewing.
"As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings," it began, according to the New York Post (Click here), but when will Mr. Clinton's wearying assault on democracy end?
"Do the right thing for the country and pull this despicable work of fiction from the air," gibbered an obviously unhinged Jay Carson, one of about a million Clinton spokesmen working feverishly to kill this somewhat fictionalized account.
After all, docudramas do fill in the blanks, Jay, with some contrived dialogue, old boy.
And the latest free for all in this whole tawdry l'affaire Clinton stems from the supposed actors' concerns over the alleged veracity in their lines, again according to the same story in the Post, which has got to be the first time this has ever happened in a TV mini-series. Then imagine Patrick Swayze complaining about the obvious inaccuracies found in that monumental docudrama about the Civil War, "North and South." And picture the necessary changes if absolute truth were to hobble the writing of that "epic." Or in re-writing the "Winds of War" and so on.
Although it appears from the article in the Post, that there was enough improvisation from the actors involved, especially Mr. Keitel, to mask the entire Clinton involvement in the lapses in 9/11 to the point of being nearly unrecognizable anyway.
And yet the Great Prevaricator has fallen victim to a series of highly visible temper tantrums - the like we have not seen since canings were routinely administered in the US Senate - in his ham fisted attempts to curtail free speech and expression, suppress ABC, and to can "The Path to 9/11."
Meanwhile, debuting at the Toronto Film Festival, is that fabulous new British movie entitled "Death of a President." This is the fictionalized cinematic account of the assassination of President George Bush, which has drawn absolutely no response from former President Clinton, his boisterous group of slavish lackeys, and the Democratic Party, who opine so vociferously over the ABC project almost daily, or is it hourly, I can't keep track anymore.
Luckily for this band of cry babies, no such movie was ever made about the Boy President. Imagine the intense brouhaha which would have accompanied any such plan to do so during the brazen catch-penny reign of Ms. Lewinsky's sleek dandified paramour.
But, as the Canada's National Post points out, since, "It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic," it's just fine with the anti-war crowd, the Democrats, and the uproarious Clinton gang. And if it features the murder of a Republican president, all the better, why complain, and why not.
Then, while we're still digesting that off-color news, we learn that America's most celebrated left-wing activist, Cindy Sheehan, whose new book "Peace Mom" is due almost out any day now, has fantasized about going back in time and killing President Bush as an infant, thanks to an exclusive in Radaronline (Click here).
This long strange and just plain perverse narrative alone is enough to make the degenerate pillars of the Democratic Party - those pettifogging stalwarts in NAMBLA, the sainted felons, and the child molesting clique - as well as the anti-war crowd, crow with joy at its telling.
But again, the venomous Clintons, the bootlickers on their staff and their toadies in the press, the party apologists, and the lockstep Democratic leadership, remain mum on this blasphemous issue. After all, one more lurid tale of presidential assassination, no matter how depraved in nature, is just fine with the villainous opposition.
But, whoa there, me hearties, let's not forget that immortal repartee between that blindly progressive media swell and silk tied outré Clinton parrot, Chris Matthews and his guest, the famous writer, saloon keeper, necessary room barrister, and self-described genius, Malachy McCourt.
Said the blindly antagonistic Matthews to his guest, "Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?"
Mr. McCourt replied, "Capital punishment? I think that if, if I've got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I've got to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment."
Mr. Matthews replied, smiling, "You just sound like a liberal Democrat, Malachy."
Again, a mouthy, smiling liberal commentator on MSNBC has shown us all too well the thread which runs throughout much of "liberal" thinking -- the hoped for trial and execution of President Bush -- as the enemy.
So, while the progressives and the liberals openly speak and write about the death of the sitting President, and President Clinton uses the color of his office to attempt the derailment of a television drama he fears may damage a legacy already on life support, resulting from his own half-hearted, helpless, and slip-shod attempts to protect America from the terror stalking us today, Mr. Bush remains silent.
Even though this program, which has yet to air, must also hold Mr. Bush partially responsible for the errors which led to 9/11, it cannot fault him for the response to this attack.
While Mr. Bush knows that movies, books, and imbecilic commentators and the like - including that array of brilliant scholars like Randi Rhodes and her sidekick Rachel Maddow, and their witty assassination skit from Air America - are speaking of his murder, he still remains quiet.
However, President Clinton, who cannot hope to keep quiet, has openly, and in concert with the highest levels of the Democratic leadership, attempted to suppress the activities of a major television network, ABC, and he has employed his full coterie of enthralled sycophants in this unseemly and all too public enterprise.
Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton's final letter, this second scarlet letter, may be his undoing.
His constant drumming may serve to drive people to their television screens in greater numbers to view the benighted show. And should any of the individuals plunked down in front of their small screens see Mr. Clinton and his cabinet in more of the dawning light of truth, following his verdant vulgar screaming conniptions, it may help move his tottering legacy faster along the way to its eventual desuetude.
At long last, the very people who Mr. Bill Clinton is professing to protect from the grave and horrific damage a mini-series can cause them may come at long last to realize that his care is not being lavished on them but, as it always is in the grotesque Clinton inertial frame, upon himself, his tarnished legacy, and the mirror of history.
Sadly, too may of us can easily recall the creaky rambling funhouses attached to those small cheap itinerant carnivals of our youth and their distorted mirrors -- mirrors where the Clinton legacy and Mr. Clinton's actions against terror can only be seen in their proper focus.