Friday, September 8, 2006
what free speech?
The 9/11 series to be aired tonight on ABC apparently makes a case that the Clinton administration may have dropped the ball as far as letting Bin Laden organize his vicious cadre of bullies, and the film apparently suggests that the reason is that Clinton and his closest advisers were preoccupied with the Lewinsky matter and its aftermath. Which is quite understandable, even if you think the whole thing was overblown (excuse me) but also plausible. The film may not have every single fact about what happened - many undoubtedly are permanently consigned to the eternal archive of national security secrecy - but why not let us see it?
In over 250 hours of interviews, various people offered statements about their experiences at the time. Some may be one-sided or small or partial views and therefore not the 'whole picture', but who sees the whole picture of anything? And of course the film will now be viewed by tons more people than would have done.
Doesn't it seem likely that Clinton himself as well as other decision-makers in his administration were way too consumed with the machinations about Monica and possible impeachment to be 'bothered' with some angry guy lurking in the hills of Afghanistan with a bunch of similarly irritable fellows. Remember how thoroughly the Lewinsky matter took over absolutely everything? The jokes about "all Monica, all the time"? And that was for us regular folks, way far away from the epicenter of it all.
I am astonished, appalled, dismayed, querulous, baffled, confused, disgusted... I can't think of any more adjectives ... about Clinton's public outcry. What the heck is wrong with him? Can you IMAGINE the reaction if George Bush said "edit it or pull it" about anything that was written about him or his administration??!!! Even though it's been factually demonstrated that many of the things said about GWB during Katrina, for example, were flat-out false, no one has apologized or changed their original reporting. Even though the Rather/Mapes reporting on the National Guard memo was proved to be false, and deliberately so, GWB never made a public stink or said "air at your peril". How in heaven's name does a supposedly likeable, trustworthy and cheery free speech advocate (Clinton) dare to demand changes and demand that if the changes are not made, the film be pulled?! Now there is some rumoring that ABC may be making changes. WHAT?!! And one broadcaster whose intellect I (usually) respect said "hmm, you think they might want to be accurate?" Huh? Does the fact that the film supports some things that GWB has said make it certain that it's false?
Don' t you wonder even more, now, what the facts and opinions in the film are? Do you suppose it's so damning that his reputation will tank completely even among current fans, as a result? I'm guessing it's nowhere near that damaging - what could be? - so I just do not understand the fuss. And anyway, suppose the film airs without any changes (please!) - couldn't there be an 'answer'? This country, after all, is the home of truly free speech, often to some people's disgust, but always to our glory, and never to our peril.
In over 250 hours of interviews, various people offered statements about their experiences at the time. Some may be one-sided or small or partial views and therefore not the 'whole picture', but who sees the whole picture of anything? And of course the film will now be viewed by tons more people than would have done.
Doesn't it seem likely that Clinton himself as well as other decision-makers in his administration were way too consumed with the machinations about Monica and possible impeachment to be 'bothered' with some angry guy lurking in the hills of Afghanistan with a bunch of similarly irritable fellows. Remember how thoroughly the Lewinsky matter took over absolutely everything? The jokes about "all Monica, all the time"? And that was for us regular folks, way far away from the epicenter of it all.
I am astonished, appalled, dismayed, querulous, baffled, confused, disgusted... I can't think of any more adjectives ... about Clinton's public outcry. What the heck is wrong with him? Can you IMAGINE the reaction if George Bush said "edit it or pull it" about anything that was written about him or his administration??!!! Even though it's been factually demonstrated that many of the things said about GWB during Katrina, for example, were flat-out false, no one has apologized or changed their original reporting. Even though the Rather/Mapes reporting on the National Guard memo was proved to be false, and deliberately so, GWB never made a public stink or said "air at your peril". How in heaven's name does a supposedly likeable, trustworthy and cheery free speech advocate (Clinton) dare to demand changes and demand that if the changes are not made, the film be pulled?! Now there is some rumoring that ABC may be making changes. WHAT?!! And one broadcaster whose intellect I (usually) respect said "hmm, you think they might want to be accurate?" Huh? Does the fact that the film supports some things that GWB has said make it certain that it's false?
Don' t you wonder even more, now, what the facts and opinions in the film are? Do you suppose it's so damning that his reputation will tank completely even among current fans, as a result? I'm guessing it's nowhere near that damaging - what could be? - so I just do not understand the fuss. And anyway, suppose the film airs without any changes (please!) - couldn't there be an 'answer'? This country, after all, is the home of truly free speech, often to some people's disgust, but always to our glory, and never to our peril.
< home >