First Amendment Hypocrisy

Dean Obeidallah has his shorts in a bunch over at CNN calling out conservatives for hypocrisy because some have criticized Sony over pulling "the Interview" (a comedy that allegedly ends with NorK leader Lil Kim Jong Un's head catching fire and exploding) but the same people called for pulling a 2006 movie his girlfriend starred in called "Death of a President", which featured the assassination of Dubya.

So let's get his outrage straight.  A comedy featuring the current NK leader's death is the same as a docu-drama about the death of the US president.   Just imagine his reaction had Dinesh D'Souza's last movie ended with Obama getting shot by a firing squad or something.  Hell, D'Souza was sent to jail for investigating the president's anti-imperialist background alone.  Oh sorry, for a campaign violation, ahem.

And of course Hollywood would only make such a movie if the firing squad was a band of rogue Teabaggers wearing don't tread on me t-shirts.  But Hollywood and the Obama State Department were all-in on blowing off Kim's head.  Hey, the administration made a point today to vigorously defend Hollywood and creative people everywhere in exercising their first amendment rights.

Which is odd, because the same people have completely forgotten what they said caused Benghazi and the other uprisings on Sept 11, 2012--an ugly video about Mohammed.  The same people even made a TV commercial at taxpayer expense to be shown in Pakistan begging forgiveness and separating the US from that ugly Mohammed film from Nakoula, who was tossed in jail.  Oh right, for a previous warrant, ahem.  The president even told the UN that the future doesn't belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.  He was right, Nakoula's future certainly got worse.

The administration even took the unprecedented step of asking You Tube to take his video down. 

So Dean, if you're looking for some hypocrisy, whoops there it is. 

Of Naked Pictures and Emperors

Some in the media are actually beginning to notice that our president's grand RtP policy in Libya might be springing a leak..

Libyan militia members have apparently turned the abandoned U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, into a water park, judging by amateur video posted to YouTube on Sunday. The video, which reflects the anarchy that currently reigns in Libya's capital, shows fully clothed men diving into and swimming in a pool.

To those who say the embassy was abandoned so this means nothing--consider this: while the State Dept may consider it a vacant building the Islamists certainly do not and will broadcast their frolicking around the pool to the Arab Street as a powerful symbol of US decline in the face of fundamentalism. Coupled with the murdering of our ambassador in Benghazi, they've got a point.  

By the way, there are rumors the other captured American journalist held by ISIS, Steven Sofloff, was taken in Libya, not Syria.  And of course as mentioned on this blog numerous times CNN reported that AQ in Iraq (ISIS) fighters were present for the attack in Benghazi.   There appears to be a nexus. 
 
So recapping.....we have a failed policy in Libya after US air power intervention, a failed policy in Egypt trying to prop up the Muslim Brotherhood only to see it upended by a military coup and new dictator, a loss of all our progress in Iraq with the advent of a Saddam regime-led insurgency army using captured US military hardware who have killed an American, and a black eye over Syria, where the leader of the free world set a red line then allowed WMDs to be used without harsh consequences.

Is it any wonder why Mr. Flexible, Vlad Putin, is about to invade Ukraine after "helping" our president on the red line problem while being a cog in the nuke negotiations in Iran?  Is it shocking that a Chinese fighter jet did di-do's around one of our surveillance planes in international airspace now claimed by them, immediately following a visit to Vietnam by Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey?

No.  But worry not, Bush's military-security apparatus constructed after 9/11 will continue to keep presidential fundraising and golf safe, negating the need for any immediate strategies against ISIS that might put the mid-terms in jeopardy.  First things first--winning the war against the real terrorists. 

Meanwhile the press is certainly outraged--about nekkid pictures of Jennifer Lawrence pilfered off 'the cloud'.  Outrageous!   The cloud is supposed to be safe!   This must be stopped!    Hey--they should all be thankful they aren't waking from a coma like Joan Rivers. 

Side Tracks

RIP, Eli Wallach. He'll be most remembered for his western roles in "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".  Here's a memory..

Into Africa

First of all, happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there.  Not sure they celebrate the day in Nigeria, but if so it's got to be even more gut-wrenching under the circumstances, something we in America can't exactly relate to.  Other than 9/11 and the few domestic attacks we've had over the years most can't relate to a religious terrorist group kidnapping girls from a school to sell them off to thugs or worse.  If asked on the street who would do such a thing in America, many might say Christians or the GOP. 

But none of this should be a particularly stunning outrage because by now everyone should understand the enemy.  But to understand an enemy one must first understand there is an enemy. 

Liberal politicians in America have tried their hardest over the last two decades to pretend these kinds of things aren't so important, which allows them to focus on domestic agendas or social justice.  Terrorism is the result of global poverty, ie, white greed or western meddling, therefore the help should go to the perpetrators themselves...

Similarly, in his book Who killed Daniel Pearl? Bernard-Henri Levi admits that the presence of Jihadists was “an open secret” for the intellectuals, humanists and journalists who covered the Balkan wars and that it was a secret they took care to keep from the public.

Why? Because they urged Western intervention and if the public knew the truth it would object to enhancing the Jihadists power and agenda. Indeed, I suspect that Clarke along with the rest of the Clinton administration similarly believed that their anti-terrorist strategy would not withstand public scrutiny.

Bush changed the paradigm, but Obama changed it back---terrorism is best handled as a law enforcement action--like Benghazi, to be handled by a bunch of guys in white shirts and thin black ties.  And now, hashtags. 

Speaking of Benghazi, the Dems say it's outrageous to consider any further discovery over that phony scandal, despite many questions and emails still remaining.  The modern truth-loving left has declared another debate over, time for the flat-earthers to move on and shut up.  

Which is strange, considering that former committee chair and soon to be ex-congressman Mike Rogers is a curious character in all of this.  Doesn't Nancy Pelosi want to know more about why he was running an investigation that had a tangential tie to his wife?   Wouldn't her colleagues like to know whether Boehner actually knows more about what was going on than advertised or whether he might be stringing his Tea Party caucus members along with perhaps the final goal of a public failure?  Sound outrageous?  Yeah, so was this. So why wouldn't the left be stoked?  Maybe it's because they know we would find out Benghazi was an example of repeating past failures of the Balkans.

Meanwhile, there are no hashtags for the fallen Americans of Benghazi or Algeria (the forgotten attack). And there won't be, because they were mainly white guys involved in the military industrial complex/national security apparatus/Big oil and gas.  The president doesn't personally take up those causes because there's no political upside to it.  Black schoolgirls in poverty-ridden Nigeria make for much better posters, even if they might perhaps inadvertently remind certain pinheads about the barbarity we still face, or inadvertently become fodder for increasing the ole military industrial complex.

But maybe the hashtags will do some good in the long run.  Maybe they will remind the youngsters of exactly who the real terrorists are and what they want.

Indicting the Critics

News is breaking that Dinesh D'Souza, the "controversial" (the term will be used by every MSM outlet reporting on this) conservative writer who penned "The Roots of Obama's Rage" and the huge-grossing documentary "2016: Obama's America" that aired during the 2012 campaign season has been indicted by SDNY US Attorney Preet Bharara on a campaign finance charge.

They didn't name the candidate, but speculation points to his long-time friend Wendy Long, who was blown out by Democrat Senator Kristen Gillibrand in 2012.

As to the why/how, the WaPo had this comment, sourced to the SDNY, saying:

The indictment was the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election, according to the U.S. Attorney’s office.

But the NY Times explained it this way:

It is not clear from the court documents what led investigators to Mr. D’Souza in a fund-raising case involving relatively small donations, in a race that ended in a blowout win for Ms. Gillibrand. Ms. Long raised about $785,000 in the race.

So where lies the truth? How did they come upon this? Were they searching through the backlog of Hillary's Chinese bundlers looking for something and stumbled across it? 

D'Souza might be as guilty as sin--we'll see--but does the Obama administration not understand how utterly partisan and utterly Stasi this looks, considering his previous work and the upcoming debate scheduled with Bill Ayers along with the pending release of his new movie "America"?   Not to mention that India is still ticked off about the strip-search of their diplomat.     

Of course Carney will probably tell us tomorrow that Obama found out about it by reading a blog.

California Kidnapping Saga

I have to admit to not paying close attention to the California murder-kidnapping story until Saturday, when it was announced that an FBI tactical agent shot and killed the suspected murderer/kidnapper near Cascade, Idaho.  Thankfully the girl was saved; too bad the perp wasn't because he'll never be forced to tell his story, which right now doesn't make much sense.

The first mystery is of course the shooting--authorities aren't talking much.  Was there a shootout, shots exchanged, or did they just take him out with a sharpshooter?  Don't expect much because--everyone together now--it's an ongoing investigation.  Not that there's anything nefarious with law enforcement at this point because it might well have been a shooting to prevent the perp from harming the girl then killing himself as they closed in.  We just don't know yet.   

Otherwise the media has reported that the man, James DiMaggio, was like an uncle to Mr. Anderson's children.  We have also been told that the 16 year old daughter who was with him in Idaho was scared of him, but had not told her parents.  The man admitted to having a crush on her and taking her alone on a trip to Hollywood, which is kind of weird.  But I guess he was the trusted uncle--the father says he saw no signs of anything untoward.  We have not been told what the mother thought or if she knew. 

And what about the parents?  Why wasn't the father with the mother, son and daughter at "Uncle Jim's" remote house near the Mexican border?  Well, if you dig a little you'll find...

Mr Anderson lives in Tennessee after moving away from the area for a job a few months ago.

Oh, so the father wasn't in the San Diego area, he was here in Tennessee. Why? Digging deeper:

Brett and Christina Anderson recently separated, Dawn said. Investigators called Brett Anderson her ex-husband, but he said they were still married.

It would seem that marital problems might be an important aspect in such a story since the perp was known to the family.  And what about the perp?   Reports say he worked as a phone guy (telecommunications specialist) at Scripts Research Institute in San Diego but was preparing to move to Texas:

DiMaggio, a telecommunications technician at The Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, was planning to move to Texas and invited Christina Anderson and the children to his home last weekend to say goodbye, Christopher Saincome, Christina Anderson's father, told AP.

Why was he moving? Was he fired? Was he just taking a new job?  It surely could have been a line of BS designed to lure the family to the home for the crime, but it wouldn't be that hard for somebody in the media to check with his employer to see how things were going at work. Was anyone "creeped out" by him there?  What was his status, etc. 

And what of the notion that DiMaggio might have rigged his Nissan Versa to explode if anyone tried to get close? What made the authorities suspect such a thing?  Was he an explosives expert? Where did that come from? Obviously the car wasn't rigged to blow up when they found it.  We aren't even sure he was armed.

And what about his romantic life?  Was he married, divorced, seeing someone? Since the Andersons were separated was there any possibly something was going on between the mother and him?  The event sounds a bit similar to the old Kubric film "Lolita" starring James Mason, where he kills the beautiful teenager's mother (Shelly Winters), whom he married to get close to her daughter, then runs off with the young girl without telling her so they can be alone, only to find tragedy in the end.  That kind of thing, middle aged man going haywire over blond teenager, may well totally explain the entire thing but depending on the news media to explain it to any degree is a losing proposition.

MORE  8/11/13

Big question in my mind is how the sequence went down in the mountains. Some reports are stating that the FBI waited until Hannah, the kidnapped girl, was separated from the campsite then grabbed her.  If that's the case--and if this report is true...

They shot dead DiMaggio, who was unarmed, and trying to 'fortify' his remote campsite.

(and considering the source it might not be)--why was he shot? What further threat were they expecting after the girl was rescued?  Anything to do with the fear the car might have been rigged to explode? 

Shehata-Devil?

The recent capture of Suleiman Abu Ghaith should, at least theoretically, bring to light the history of Iran keeping certain key AQ members under 'house arrest' since 9/11.  But why, some people may ask, would they do it?  After all they are Shia, AQ is Sunni. 

While the answer may be obvious to the Jessica Chastain type characters in the CIA--perhaps as leverage to keep the west from attacking and bide time for the nuclear program, the bigger question may be whether Iran had any foreknowledge of 9/11 (as a federal judge in 2011 ruled in a civil trial).  Such a revelation, if true, is certainly not something that would make headlines at the moment for obvious reasons, nevertheless it might explain a lot about the War on Terror in general.

Poking around on this subject invariably unearths the name Thirwat Shehata.  A lawyer and senior member of Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (his resume is deep), he was/is among the house arrestees in Iran.  He was also one of the senior members of EIJ that was believed to be operating in Iraq before the invasion in 2002-03, as mentioned by Tenet and Cheney (as casus belli for the attack).  His presence there is disputed, but one thing is sure, he's still around and hasn't been caught and is known as a right-hand man to Zawahiri.

But there's more than just safe harbor in Mullah-ville.  Shehata married the sister of Mahmoud Jaballah, who operated in Canada until he was picked up after 9/11 and placed in their "Gitmo North' without charges.  A judge released him and fellow detainee Mohammed Mahjoub to 'house arrest' in 2007 although the Canadian CIA (CSIS) has been closely monitoring them since.  Mahjoub was connected to "Vanguards of Conquest" (possibly the second in command) and was associated with Essam Marzouk, also a VoC member.  The Vanguards were associated with Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef, who was working on a project when he was droned in 2001. Abu Ghaith threatened America with millions of deaths via WMDs in 2001.  So yes, surely the FBI was very interested in what he might know.   

This blog did a piece on the Canadian connection back in 2008, tying them to suspected AQ figures Mohammed Loay Bayazid, one of the founding members of AQ, and Muburak al-Duri, an Iraqi whom the 9/11 Commission called a WMD procurement person for bin Laden.  Despite all kinds of circumstantial evidence placing these two in connection with AQ or EIJ members, neither have ever been arrested.   Both deny any involvement with terrorism, so maybe the FBI believes them, or maybe there's an inconvenience factor in play. 

At any rate, those not as smart as the Jessica Chastain character might see the dots between AQ, Iraq, Iran and WMD--and even the new Muslim Brotherhood ascension in Egypt--and try to connect them.  Some might even see the "death to America, death to Israel" scribbled in the anthrax letters after 9/11 as the calling card it was intended to portray, ie, don't mess with us, we have sleepers.  Which would line up with keeping AQ figures in-country under house arrest.  Sort of like keeping UBL locked up in a house in a Pakistani military garrison town.  Insurance.  And what about Benghazi?  Any loose connections?  

Or maybe it's all too convenient and Halliburton and friends are still the real enemy.   As usual, mystery and confusion reigns. 

What's that Sulfur Smell?

Ah, our favorite South American tinpot has died.   Who could forget his poignant speech about "the devil" back in 2006?   Surely a few libs were secretly clapping over that one.

Of course his nutcake regime is blaming some American secret program. But hey, Chavez seemed fine in 2009 when he met with our current president for the first time.  And he basically endorsed Obama for reelection.  So it had to be a Cheney death squad hit.    

Anyway, hopefully Sean Penn and Bill Ayers are too torn up about it.  Or Dolores Huerta.  Or Code Pinko. Or the Iranian Mullahs.  Or Hizballah sleepers.   And for gosh sakes let's hope this doesn't spike oil prices.

MORE  3/6/13

When AC messed with Hugo.  That really showed him!   But hey, it does seem there are less CITGO stations around these days.  Just sayin.  

Derailed!

Ran across this picture today from recent news..  pay attention to the actions the men are taking and the first sentence of the caption:

Damn, what a couple of Popeyes!  Re-railing freight cars by themselves!   Or maybe abject morons.   No, apparently this is a time honored process in getting minor train derailments cleared up by using wood blocks or metal pieces under the wheels to guide them back on the rails.  But the train cars are not moved along by the men using crowbars, they are moved along by an engine. 

Speaking of derailments...

Watched the Academy Awards last night for the first time in years.  Yes, it was mainly due to the possible political fireworks with Zero Dark Thirty along with a need to retreat from the machine.  And it was fairly enjoyable show--right up until the end.  Enjoyed Shirley Bassey singling "Goldfinger" again--she's still got a little left in those amazing pipes.  Her stage presence far outshines Adel's but the rookie's voice is certainly golden.  And yes, Babs Streisand still has a gift.  For singing.  

But the stunt with Michelle O at the end wiped out any good comments uttered along the way.  What a cheap sucker move.  And Jack Nicholson taking part?   Sad.  As reported, some of the media and critics even groaned.

But the question is, did the White House know the winner beforehand?   Would Zero Dark Thirty and its 'torture' sequences been as easy for Mrs Obama to roll off the tongue after her little we-are-the-world speech?   How would that movie winning look to the billion-strong world audience?   America--the land of Bush torture, brought to you by the Obama White House!

Sorry, going to have to suspend a bit disbelief.   As to how Hollywood landed her?  Of course this is what they would say.  

 

Tough Room

Wow, these guys are serious critics:

An Egyptian court convicted in absentia Wednesday seven Egyptian Coptic Christians and a Florida-based American pastor, sentencing them to death on charges linked to an anti-Islam film that had sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world. The low-budget "Innocence of Muslims," parts of which were made available online, portrays the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, womanizer and buffoon...

. ..Egypt's official news agency said the court found the defendants guilty of harming national unity, insulting and publicly attacking Islam, and spreading false information -- charges that carry the death sentence.

Even Roger Ebert can't touch that kind of a review. Wonder what Bubba the Love Sponge would get for deep frying the Koran on You Tube?  It's hard to top death but surely they would try.  "Zero stars--death to you fatboy!" 

Meanwhile here in reality the White House press corpse--apparently no longer constrained by the reelection--have been freed up to practice journalism again and they are not disappointing. Yesterday they actually asked Carney why they sent Rice out to talk about something not 'in her lane' (because she's wicked smart and stuff) while today they asked who changed the talking points.  Apparently they learned that it doesn't matter because there's an investigation going on to determine what really happened, which is all that matters, an investigation that could be wrapped up tomorrow by asking the Libyan Assembly president (who wasn't running for reelection) because he basically had it figured out on day one. 

Speaking of which, will no one ask Jay Carney why AQ in Iraq jihadists were participating in the attack?  Were they outraged about the movie and flew to Libya to participate with the other 'extremists not named AQ'?  If they were involved how do we 'bring them to justice' and make sure they never attack anyone again?   We would ask Peter Bergen but he doesn't seem to think any of this matters either. 

Good Start, NY Times...

..now finish the job.  You've now told us more about the amateurish Coptic Christian who produced "Innocence of Muslims" and distributed it on You Tube, which later became fodder for worldwide protests and violence along with a rationale for the Benghazi attack as relayed by our Ambassador to the UN. 

Now, what about the other part--the part where it got translated it into Arabic and broadcast on YT, becoming a convenient tool to whip up the very Islamic frenzy the film criticized on our most sensitive day, 9/11?  

C'mon, you guys can do it!  Tell us why and how the film inflamed as it did, the players who used it, and whether those players were connected to AQ and/or trying to get the Blind Sheikh released.

Or would that be too close to a double-link to Islamic terrorism, both from Benghazi and Cairo, therefore inconvenient until Susan Rice is safely confirmed?        

Geronimo Time

Three weeks to go and here come the kill Osama stories, just in time for the foreign policy debate.  Several stories have made news recently, including one about a new book from Mark Bowden, famous for writing "Black Hawk Down".  The book details the hunt for bin Laden beginning at 9/11 and ending in Abbotabad (why he started with 9/11 is anyone's guess, but the curious may want to start with this then proceed to this).

It's getting the treatment by Vanity Fair, relaying the book's inside-baseball high level administration discussions that evidently led to the takedown mission.  By the way, as  reporters and bloggers sift through this Libya mess it's apparent the buck doesn't stop with the Decider Guy and sometimes not even his top level officials--it's those middle level officials that need to be voted out.

The excerpts support the gutsy call idea; it was on a 50/50 shot the "Pacer" was UBL yet Obama pressed ahead undaunted anyway.  Joe Biden comes off as Joe Doofus, the only one in the room who advised O not to go because failure might scuttle his re-election chances.  It appears Joe is playing his useful idiot role to a level that should get him an Oscar nomination.

But 50/50, remember that.  It was a "toss-up".   Which is funny, because if you read "No Easy Day" by the pseudonym SEAL Mark Owen he mentions a CIA analyst named "Jen" who was "100 percent sure" the Pacer was indeed bin Laden.  The new bin Laden movie "Zero Dark Thirty" even seems to make a hero out of "Jen" through the character Jessica Chastain.  Maybe it was better for the administration to have it released in December after all.   

Meanwhile World Net Daily is pushing a story by former general Paul Vallely who claims unnamed intelligence sources tell him Obama knew nothing of the raid on May 1 because he was on the golf course and didn't order it.  Panetta ordered it, and they actually had to pull him back to the White House to watch (which is why he appears to be ticked off and sitting in the corner).  For this to be true there had to be a mutiny of sorts in the administration, which is a little hard to believe.  Some conspiracy whackos actually think Obama waited until May 1--Mayday--to pull the trigger in order to make it a statement of the triumph of workers over religious fascism.  Others believe he wanted to wait for the Correspondent's Dinner so he could first put Trump in his place for the birth cert.    

Besides, a new picture released with Bowden's article acts to discredit the "Obama didn't know" notion, should anyone take a serious notion to believe WND.  Notice the shot of Obama in the Sit room in what appears to be a pre-mission meeting bylined May 1--the day of the attack--which had to have occurred before Obama hit the golf course because previous explanations take him from the course to the residence to the operational room, whence the event was ready to unfold--still wearing his golf shoes.  Hillary is wearing the same pants suit in both this new picture and the famous one. Also, the new Vanity Fair shot contains Leon Panetta, who was supposedly back at Langley during the event.

Let's just say that if Vallely's source is correct America has some serious, serious problems, but it seems the chance is less than 50/50.  By the way, is this his source?  Or this?  The latter's book contained a blizzard of inaccuracies about other events that discredits its narrative.     

So what about the raid, was it indeed a "kill mission"?  Bowden mentions a fantasy version where UBL gets captured leading to an article III court appearance in the US.  Seriously.  Even Eric Holder thought this was impossible.   Going back to Mark Owen's book he claims the stories about bin Laden being killed in the room going for the gun with the young wife trying to shield him were indeed stories; he detailed UBL being shot and mortally wounded as soon as his head popped out the hallway door at the first sign of the approaching SEAL team.   Bowden's book confirms this storyline as well.  By the way, that shifting narrative is one reason Vallely's source can't be fully discounted. 

Owen found it strange Binny never went for his weapons, which were in the room and not even loaded, while having perhaps 10-15 minutes to collect himself after hearing the crashed helo and gunfire downstairs.  He attributes this to the cowardice of some leaders, and he may be correct.  Then again, maybe he was expecting to be captured.  Maybe he was about to come out with his hands up, yelling for his court-appointed attorney.   Or as Bowden points out, maybe he figured it was a Pakistani force coming to officially remove him for some political reason.  Don't count on ever knowing for sure. 

And don't count on having anyone in the media ask the administration if this football spiking and all these films and books might rile up the Muslim street and its one billion Osamas.  

Path to Paradise

With the recent Muslim street brouhaha over a film clip it might be useful to look back to the salad days of Clinton and the 90s, when jihad was boiling up in America and the government was chasing down terrorists with FBI agents and CIA rendition squads.

In 1997 HBO made a short film about the first WTC attack.  Since they didn't have any visions of Democrat-future to guide them they took a fairly honest look at the situation, with the exception of airbrushing out Iraqi participant Abdul Yasin (it would be interesting to know why).  The film was rather prescient in its predictions--especially the last scene--but apparently didn't ruffle many Islamic feathers at the time.  The whole thing is on You Tube. 

Watching the film gives one a sense of the importance of the man who was bin Laden before the real bin Laden came along--Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh", currently serving life in prison in the US.  It also gives one the sense he may be a lot more important than Americans were led to believe then--and now.

So it's comforting to know the current administration has adamantly denied they are in negotiation to release him back to the new Brotherhood leadership in Egypt.  Then again it's not very comforting to consider that any exchange would likely consist of Egypt getting their jihadist leader back and America getting.....a promise that he won't bless anymore terrorist acts against us?  What else could they offer?

Making Clint's Point

One of the screaming messages from Eastwood's appearance at the RNC was that politicians serve as our employees. We hire them to represent us. We can summarily fire them. It's good to be able to fire people--remember when Romney said that?  Too many look to politicos as saviors or masters, to include many of Clint's fellow celebrities.

Case in point, Obama responding to the person who screamed they 'love(d)' him. "You'll love me even more" was his reply, followed by some political babble.   That's likely an instinctive reply--not shared by only Obama but nevertheless something the electorate should watch.  In other words, despite Obama not living up to even his own performance standards there are still people who support him for largely emotional reasons and will vote for him accordingly.  It's doubtful they would see it the same way if Obama was one of their employees in a failing small business. 

Meanwhile, our old friend Hollywood Bob Woodward is out with another well-timed tome featuring the latest insider DC gossip. It's hard to tell whether he's an ideologue or not--which is presumably a testament to his journalistic chops--but if he's correct about quotes like this:

"Obama doesn't really have the joy of the game. Clinton basically loved negotiating with a bunch of pols, about anything," Summers said. "Whereas, Obama, he really didn't like these guys."

...then it certainly validates not only Dinesh D'Souza's theory about Obama's ideology but also Clint's conversation with the empty chair.  Woodward quotes Summers as characterizing the president as bogged down by his own pragmatism, which seems a contradiction to the above, but if he's really in pursuit of the ideals occasionally blurted out in unscripted conversations with plumbers or off-prompter remarks about who builds things in America then that "pragmatism" could easily be a defensive wall around the goals he truly desires with passion.

It's About Time...

After being officially at war with terrorists since late 2001 it's nice to see a movie is finally coming out that portrays American troops as heroes...fighting terrorists.




"Act of Valor" is getting a lot of ink today.  Reviewers are touting it's authentic Navy SEAL cast and unconventional, non-Pentagon endorsed beginnings as it prepares to open on the 24th. Actress Roselyn Sanchez, who plays the CIA agent (yet another strange thing-- an apparently sympathetic spook) comments about working with the SEALS:

“What surprised me was how unaffected and cool they were," Sanchez told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column of the SEALs. "Here they were doing a Hollywood movie and it wasn’t a big deal, they went along for the ride, they did their thing and they were incredible. I didn’t see any diva behavior. It was new for me to work with guys that even if they were waiting around for eight hours and didn’t have a trailer, they were content. It was refreshing.”

Roselyn must have forgotten what normal men are like.  At any rate, the movie apparently shows our guys blowing up terrorists, even of the Islamic variety (albeit Chechen), which is something Hollywood was loathe to do during the Bushitler years. During World War II Hollywood was urged by FDR to make pro-war films and cut down on the grisly reality-based kind, which undoubtedly helped morale at home. But aside from "Blackhawk Down" in 2001--made during the Clinton years--it's hard to think of any Hollywood productions during the Bush years that made the US military look valiant fighting terrorists.

While it's tempting to apply politics, ie, a democrat is back in the White House so it's time to produce patriotic movies again, this one began filming in 2007.  Nevertheless it will act as a political tool insofar as showing the SEALS in action, reminding folks of how Obama got Osama (and a substitute for the postponed release of the UBL movie, originally scheduled to premier just after the Democratic convention), however some parties may object based on the bad guys, which could have been another reason Hollywood laid low (afraid of the fatwa). But politics aside, the movie sounds great. It sounds old-fashioned. Maybe it'll even have a happy ending.

Weird?

From Minnesota:

An investigation into the origins of Minnesota's first human anthrax case in many years is focusing on where the patient might have been exposed to the deadly pathogen, Minnesota State Epidemiologist Dr. Ruth Lynfield said today.

..The MDH has not revealed the patient's condition or listed any identifying details such as name, gender, home state, or hospital.

This person contracted the inhaled variety as opposed to the cutaneous kind on the skin (which is more common for human infections). The story says the FBI was briefly involved, determined it wasn't terrorism, and is already off the case. Must have been something the infected person told them. For some reason those details cannot be released to the public.

As to the privacy lockdown, according to the story the mystery family has "had bad experiences with the news media in the past" and wanted the hospital to withhold information. The same MDH spokesman was quoted yesterday as follows:

"We're not giving details about the case simply because it is not a risk to the public, and we're concerned about patient privacy," said Dr. Ruth Lynfield, the Minnesota state epidemiologist. She noted that anthrax is not spread from person to person.

Well no, it's not a risk to the public unless some AQ guy was out testing his crop duster. But to think public officials would pretend away a possible health threat is too ridiculous to ponder, so we won't. As to the privacy thing, since the family says they've had bad episodes with the media in the past that means they've had episodes with the media in the past. How many people have episodes with the media at all? Maybe this person is semi-famous, or the son or daughter of someone famous. If so it sorta defeats the purpose because there's no way a story like that wouldn't come out eventually. Getting anthrax from the wild isn't exactly like contracting VD from a hooker.

So maybe they aren't famous. The point of this silly speculation is that people are left to speculate about an extremely rare infection that mimics the bio-terror attack in 2001, which caused a lot of panic because everyone knows AQ wanted WMDs so they could more easily kill lots of infidels. Unless a worse case develops we'll likely not hear much more about this story going forward. Indeed--no news will be good news.

Side Tracks

Taking a break from music for awhile to post some favorite clips from Hollywood. Here's Cary Grant in "North by Northwest" trying hard to get arrested..

Polanski

My take is simple--bring him back, just like any other captured fugitive. And I'm a big fan of vintage Hollywood.

Not surprisingly this has divided the left coasters and flyovers. To some, Polanski was probably one weirdo among many, feeding the beast. For Hollywood, just another day at the movies. After all the 13 year old seventh grader was, according to him, radiating sexual tension. Some supporters may see a kind of Fatty Arbuckle story here while others see a lech.

But the bottom line is he raped someone, whether 13 or 31. It was not consensual, and even if she had agreed it still wasn't due to her minor status. He skipped town before sentencing and didn't return, and rule of law systems function best when practicing (blindly) the rule of law. Why is that so hard to understand?

What's the matter with a hero?

Not a new question, of course.

Since 9/11 we've only seen one Hollywood blockbuster sympathetic to soldiers, Blackhawk Down, and that's probably because the event in question occurred during Clinton's term. We had United 93 but that dealt with citizen heroism.

There's been a lot of press over the poor box office on the recent spate of anti-war movies, including Mark Cuban's "Redacted". Let me just say, Bill O'Reilly and others are right to hit the streets in protest of that movie. It's not about freedom of speech more than about the safety of our forces these Hollywood people purport to support.

Making a movie like Redacted, which showcases a bad bunch of apples, when troops are still in harm's way amounts to a de facto support of the enemy. While the intent might have been to show the Muslim/Arab street and Europe that all of America doesn't stand behind Bushitler, the target audience will not get that message. Not all enjoy our open and free media.

But I think Redacted is only part of a larger trend to neutralize the notion of the American hero in general. Scorsese's "The Departed" paints heroes and happy endings as quaint echoes of the past, perhaps not the best example but another reed in the bog. Many in the younger generation might be OK with this, preferring it to phony baloney feel-good fables of the black and white past. Fine, as long as they understand the reality of good versus evil and realize the enemy is crystal clear about who represents evil.

The truth is here!

Rod Lurie and his truthy film crew have arrived in the Bluff City. They've taken over the Commercial Appeal, as this morning's story notes, with our small-city Memphis reporters rubbing elbows with the likes of Beckinsale, Wyle and Dillon. Exciting and all, let's just hope such fraternizing won't color their movie review down the road.

Looking hard for any hint of politics in the story we find only this:

"I wrote Bob (Redford) that I was going to commit grand theft larceny with 'All the President's,' and he told me, in his atheistic way, 'God bless.'"

In the film, Beckinsale plays a reporter who is jailed after she writes a story that "outs" a CIA agent, played by Farmiga.

"It's a movie that puts journalism in a very positive light, and a movie that deals with the issue of the First Amendment," Lurie said. "I can't imagine any newspaper wouldn't be eager to be part of that."

Wonder if Lurie or anyone else will be making a movie about Wen Ho Lee's settlement with the media? Not sexy enough, perhaps. Nuke secrets and all.

In perhaps a stroke of irony the nominee for Attorney General was just yesterday asked about a possible shield law for reporters and provided a less than enthusiastic reply:

he echoed Bush administration arguments that such a law could be used to protect journalists who are acting as spies or terrorists.

As to the real-life subject of the film (oops, sorry--it's not actually about Judy Miller, wink, wink) we await something more than gossip.