Posted on 03/24/2008 9:40:29 AM PDT by FilmCutter
That said, I have to agree with other posters that the title "Bush's War" telegraphs a POV that calls into question any claims to be an attempt at an unbiased history of the war. PBS, Frontline, "Bush's War" - all bad signs, but I'll try to keep an open mind about it.
What a hoot.
I’m hoping that it is a good Frontline (there have been some) and that the title is misleading and draws in some viewers who will have their preconceived ideas challenged.
But I won’t be surprised if it isn’t. And I don’t think it helps debate one way or the other to label something “Bush’s war” while it is still ongoing and during the final year of his elected terms.
Ultimately it is Saddam’s war. And that war is over. Saddam’s government is toppled never to return. What has replaced it is still in transition. And outside forces are attempting to cause chaos there. Can it be called a civil war while multiple nations are engaging in combat there?
Did you see Jules’ review? It doesn’t look good...
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2008/03/24/bushs-war/
Well it is interesting as one of the original names floated was indeed “Our War.” But as the doc. tends to be a sharp-elbowed account of the inner circle around Bush - with Bush as the decision-maker - the powers to be felt that it was a better title.
It is also kinda’ funny that as one of a few conservatives at FRONTLINE, I get it from both sides. there and here.
makes the work even better.
Frontline has a history of bias to the left since its PBS, so hopefully you can understand why the board feels this way. Bush made some serious screw ups before Peterus, but Lincoln did the same with McClellan before he got Grant and Sherman involved. Monday Morning quarterbacking a war is real easy. I however will give it a chance and watch it!
Up in post 51 bcsco provided this link to that critique on the forum. It was well worth the effort to read, and a little easier to read formatted properly here.
I appreciate your mention of that analysis. As you stated, it doesn’t look good.
Here locally, the production is going to air in only four hours tonight and tomorrow. I’m not sure why he refers to it as a 4.5 hour production.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1990770/posts
Tough audience.
less we forget:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2000/
and others during the Clinton Administration.
This ‘code’ has been the standard in the liberal media for years. Bipartisan means that Republicans come around and support the liberal position. Extremist is the language used when Republicans generate a successful outcome to their position.
I think we’ll all die waiting to find out how socialist Obamination is going to differ from this based on his hard left Senate voting record.
And of course in the Illinois State Senate, he was a lone voice speaking on behalf of legislation to make sure babies who survive aborted abortions didn’t live. He called it a threat to all abortion.
Yeah, he’s really a uniter. Too bad babies don’t get proxy votes. They’d all vote against him.
From Crittendon:
Of the actual participants in events, there is a heavy reliance on well-known Rumsfeld-Cheney adversaries such Richard Clarke, Richard Armitage, with no mention of the fact that they, and virtually everyone in this depiction of recent history, have axes to grind and their own sullied legacies to patch up.
&&&&
Now I know I will not bother with this. I had almost completely succeeded in forgetting the names Richard Clarke and Richard Armitage, and never want to hear them again!
I have major reservations with anything that PBS is involved in. FilmCutter may feel it is a fair documentary, and I haven’t seen it so can’t comment one way or another. But I’ve voiced my reservations. Its seems others on this and the other thread have been even more vocal.
But if FilmCutter hasn’t done his homework as to what FreeRepublic members expect as ‘fair and balanced’, then he deserves to take shots when advertising his work here.
From the last paragraph of Crittendon’s review:
Frontline didn’t manage to find any time at all to mention the name of the most significant Iraq commander of all, Gen. David Petraeus.
Is this true?
Thanks for the info - I hope to catch it if I can get home soon enough tonight. I do think the title “Bush’s War” already sounds tendentious and leaning toward the left’s view of recent history, but it sounds at least like there should be a lot of interesting material compiled for this work.
I share the universal distrust of PBS here, which gives leftists like Bill Moyers such an unquestioned run of propaganda without challenge.
I remember when Frank Gaffney had a contract from PBS to make a film about muslims in America for a world religion series . The suits at PBS did not like the message in what he made, which he considered to be truthful, and they refused to air his film.
PBS at a Crossroads
Why is a film on moderate Islam being suppressed?
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
On March 21, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the federal budgets of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) challenged the leaders of those two organizations concerning their handling of the film Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. The film was produced at a cost of some $675,000 in taxpayer funds for the PBS series “America at a Crossroads,” which will begin airing next week.
---snip----
Filmcutter may well be the most conservative editor at PBS. But if the documentary relies heavily on Richard Armitage and Richard Clarke, and doesn’t even mention Petraeus, then I suspect their idea of fair and balanced doesn’t mesh with mine. And Filmcutter is mistaken as to what sells here.
Filmcutter: Is it so wrong to suggest that your isolated view (by isolated I mean through the lens of PBS style journalism) indeed doesn’t really take as strong a moderate slant as we at FR would consider even-handed? I don’t think so. You may place value on the likes of Armitage and Clarke. We don’t. And by ignoring the likes of Gen. Petraeus, you show a distinct disregard toward balance, IMHO.
But, honestly, from what I’ve read on these threads, and if the above is true, while others may be interested I’ll have to give a full ‘no thank you’ to your effort, though well meant. Sorry. No sale.
Speaking of Armitage:
FEBRUARY 2003 : (ARMITAGE ON IRAN... A DEMOCRACY?) “The axis of evil was a valid comment, but I would note there’s one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. And you approach a democracy differently,” —————Richard Armitage, Feb. 2003———via 2 posted on 03/06/2005 7: 55:58 AM PST by wolf24 | To 1
JANUARY 2005 : (REPORT : ARMITAGE ADMITS HE AND POWELL SOMETIMES WENT PUBLIC WITH THEIR VIEWS IN AN EFFORT TO MANIPULATE BUSH POLICY) WASHINGTON (AP) — Baring one of Washington’s worst-kept secret, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s deputy said he and Powell sometimes went public with their dissenting views to try to influence Bush administration policy. Richard Armitage, who leaves along with Powell at the end of President Bush’s first term, described the process as using the “bully pulpit.’’ “Differences of opinion are something you as a citizen and I as a citizen should value in your government,’’ Armitage said in an interview with ...[NPR]’s “Morning Edition’’ on Thursday. “You really want it.’’
Powell and Armitage, whose friendship was forged decades ago, share foreign policy views that are distinctly more moderate than those of Bush and other key presidential advisers. They also made far more use of media interviews and speeches to promote U.S. foreign policy than their predecessors. Armitage made clear in the interview that the public appearances had another design, as well — to reflect and register the views of the State Department as well as influence the shaping of policy.
“When Secretary Powell speaks or when Rich Armitage speaks, we’re putting out our views. And we will do so respectfully, of course,’’ Armitage said according to a text released Friday by the State Department. “This is what the president paid us for, to bring him our views.’’ “And, of course, he can agreee with us or not, as he chooses,’’ Armitage said.
Armitage offered no examples of specific areas or issues of disagreement, although his response was to a question that suggested that Powell and he had been at odds with other top administration officials on policies involving North Korea and the Middle East. Powell is known to have pushed for negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear weapons programs, a strategy Bush adopted after months of review at the beginning of his first term. On the Middle East, Powell sometimes sought more flexibility from Israel, than did the White House, in dealing with the Palestinians. “You don’t want a government that sees everything the same way,’’ Armitage said. “That would be bad — it would lead to bad government, in my view.’’———— Armitage says he and Powell went public to try to sway Bush [State shouldn’t agree with White House]BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer , Charleston Gazette ^ | 1-15-05
2005 : (REPORT: ARMITAGE ANGLES FOR RUMSFELD’S JOB...)
MARCH 13, 2006 : (WASHPO’S BEN BRADLEE FINGERS ARMITAGE) THE WASHINGTON POST’s famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame. In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: “Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell’s former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. ‘That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,’ former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said.” ‘I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.’” Developing...-——— “WASH POST’s Ben Bradlee Claims Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage,” The Drudge Report, march 13, 2006 | Drudge
MARCH 31, 2006 : (ARMITAGE IS ELECTED AS A NEW OUTSIDE DIRECTOR BY CONOCO) HOUSTON, March 31, 2006 -— The board of directors of ConocoPhillips has elected Richard L. Armitage, Bobby S. Shackouls and William E. Wade Jr. as new outside directors. This increases the total number of ConocoPhillips directors to 18, of which 17 are outside directors.....-————?
Conoco... wonder how Conoco’s board “feels” about Iran?
APRIL 2006 mid : (CONOCO’s ARMITAGE & SENATOR LUGAR vs RICE & BOLTON ON ENGAGEMENT WITH IRAN MEME) Only days after former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage urged the Bush Administration to engage the Iranians in talks rather than launch air strikes against their nuclear facilities (see DallasBlog story on Armitage’s remarks here), the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee echoed Armitage’s views. Here are excerpts from the Australian story which lays out Senator Richard Lugar’s position on the Iranian situation:
Influential Republican senator Richard Lugar has urged the Bush administration to change its Iran strategy, saying the US must talk directly to Tehran about its nuclear ambitions instead of pushing for economic sanctions.
Senator Lugar said Iran, as the world’s fourth-largest supplier of oil, was “part of the energy picture” and urged President George W. Bush to play “cool” and seek direct negotiations.
He said it was too soon to be pressing the international community for economic sanctions against Iran, a strategy being strongly urged by the US ambassador at the UN, John Bolton, and, more recently, by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. -——— “Senator Lugar Calls For Talks With Iran,” by Tom Pauken, DallasBlog.com, 04/19/2006
2006 : (MCCAIN CAMPAIGN STAFF INCLUDES POWELL & THE PLAME “LEAKER”...ARMITAGE) Powell and Armitage are advisors on JOHN MCCAIN’S POTUS campaign staff...———10 posted on 08/28/2006 3:27:10 PM PDT by Txsleuth | To 4
*******
“The senator’s [McCain] critical comments came on the heels of a New York Times article Monday about his brain trust. The accoount raised some eyebrows in foreign policy circles for giving prominence to three former government officials seen to be at odds with some of Mr. Bush’s policies abroad: the secretary of state during Mr. Bush’s first term, Colin Powell; Mr. Powell’s deputy at the State Department, Richard Armitage, and the national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft.” -———August 23, 2006 via Josh Gershen Staff reporter for the New York Sun
And what IS the truth about the WMD as reported by PBS’s liberal Frontline?
From the conservative POV, the WMD existed and were moved, destroyed, hidden, etc. in the months before we invaded by one of his sons with the help and insistance of the Russians.
I have watched 75 minutes of this Frontline and take from it that Rumsfeld is Bad; Cheney is Worse; all former staff and reporters who are participating in this show are being treated as if their observations and memories are perfect and fair.
Since this is the meme that every Big Media outlet has been selling us since 2001, this show is just a retrospective of the story Big Media decided was the “truth”.
Bush is treated as irrelevant and almost out of the loop, while “alpha males” in his administration are infighting.
Thanks for the critique.
I’ll pass on watching another smear job on Bush.
My husband and I still love and admire the man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.