Rewriting history

From the Washington Post

Now, I read Woodward's book cover to cover three times, and I'm damn sure the president was never portrayed as a George Patton/John Wayne-type. I stopped counting how many times Woodward had to put "..." in quotes from the president. I smell the Hand of Rove in Chetwynd's little story.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From the Washington Post

Now, I read Woodward''s book cover to cover three times, and I''m damn sure the president was never portrayed as a George Patton/John Wayne-type. I stopped counting how many times Woodward had to put ""..."" in quotes from the president. I smell the Hand of Rove in Chetwynd''s little story.

How is this any different than any other movie? The movie that came out a few years ago about JFK and the Cuban Missle crisis was the same way. It is a movie. Rat, you need a new hobby besides Bush-bashing.

"Ulairi" wrote:

Rat, you need a new hobby besides Bush-bashing.

Where was the Bush bashing? You''re reaching. Stop before you pull something.

If you read the article is it a Bush bash. They aren''t re-writing history. It is a dumb movie on Showtime. No one will see it.

Like nobody watched the carrier landing for the same reasons? It''s all part of the marketing of George W. Bush for 2004.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Like nobody watched the carrier landing for the same reasons? It''s all part of the marketing of George W. Bush for 2004.

The carrier landing is different. It was a political gamble, he could of looked really stupid.

This is a Hollywood movie TV movie that isn''t even on the big four.

It is, so far, the only attempt at making an account of what happened on that day in a semi-fictional format and I think it would behoove the producers, for the benefit of truth, to make an accurate portrayal of that tragic day rather than a sequel to Independence Day.

he could of looked really stupid.

There are times he doesn''t?

Bash ''em. Bash ''em good! (<-self recognition of my own irrationality, so no need to point it out.)

"Rat Boy" wrote:

It is, so far, the only attempt at making an account of what happened on that day in a semi-fictional format and I think it would behoove the producers, for the benefit of truth, to make an accurate portrayal of that tragic day rather than a sequel to Independence Day.

If you demand that I want all movies featuring JFK to be changed and FDR to be changed. It is a movie. You just hate Bush.

JFK was a joke; Pearl Harbor was an insult; this movie will be a catastrophe. Given the omniscient image management going on at the White House (did you know they edit out verbal errors made by the president in official transcripts?), a movie about this day now is ill-timed. If Pearl Harbor was released in 1943, don''t you think there''d be plenty of people angry about its unrealistic portrayals? And that doesn''t make them anti-FDR, either.

Every movie like this is going to be a joke. Serious thing happen on the History Channel. This is a TV movie for a small network. I won''t even watch it and you guys think I''m the big ""bush lover."" (Anyone point out the joke will get a punch in the nose. )

There have been good and accurate films made about real-life political situations. All the Presidents Men, The Path to War, The Gathering Storm, Tora! Tora! Tora! all spring to mind. This isn''t some half-assed TV movie from FX or TNT; this is a premium channel cable movie, which if you haven''t noticed, have gotten a lot more clout and attention over the years. This''ll be promoted like mad and become the Republican version of Primary Colors, but in the end (like Primary Colors), it''ll end up being another Green Berets (which also starred George Takei; Mr. Sulu has a funny habit of signing up for propaganda films).

I tend never to believe anything made in Hollywood. Except Oliver Stone.

With all the Star Trek actors in this movie, you''d think there''d be just a HINT of liberalism in there.

Of course, with Trek the way it is these days, we''d probably see a seen at a strip club and continuity violations aplenty (""Wait a minute! Hitler isn''t alive in this part of history!"").