Stephen F. Hayes at the Weekly Standard calls 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi “powerful” and a film “well worth seeing” in it’s film review titled 13 Hours: Stranger than Fiction. First, they talk about the movie and the impact it has on the viewer:
The movie is based on the book of the same name, written by Boston University journalism professor Mitchell Zuckoff with five CIA contractors who participated in the many battles in Benghazi that night. The authors announced in the book’s introduction that they had sought to avoid the politics of Benghazi in favor of a fact-based account of what happened during the 13 hours of fighting there. And while the film tracks the book’s narrative closely, Bay’s depiction of the sense of abandonment felt by those men, as they wait for help that never arrives, heightens the outrage.
Stephen also talks about the political ramifications (read the whole thing!) and the impact on the GOP primary but the money quote:
Whatever its impact, 13 Hours is a powerful film that is well worth seeing. From beginning to end, it forcefully rejects the sanitized, no-fault version of Benghazi. In scene after powerful scene, it assigns blame: to policymakers in Washington who naïvely overestimated our ability to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in post-Qaddafi Libya; to Washington bureaucrats who paid little attention to repeated warnings about the security of U.S. facilities in Benghazi; to CIA officials more concerned with career advancement and positive performance reviews than saving lives.
But perhaps the strongest indictment made by 13 Hours is an unspoken one. The film itself is an implicit but devastating critique of the American media that refused to report this story in this way, an establishment media that left to Hollywood the responsibility of telling these important truths.
It’s refreshing to see anything come out of Hollywood that attempts to tell the unvarnished truth about anything. To see a movie that addresses an issue that has current political ramifications spin is almost astounding. I urge you to support these rare events to deliver the message to the west coast that Americans want to see the truth without liberal spin. Read the book and see movie. Maybe even see another of Michael Bay’s movies; voting with your dollar is the most effective vote you can cast.
The blogosphere is all a-twitter about Dan Rather saying that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him state troopers to flag down the traffic. And yes, at first glance, his statements do appear to be “racist rhetoric”:
DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. “Listen he just hasn’t been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.” And a version of, “Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate” this is what’s been used against him, “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.“
I’m certainly no lover of extreme-left talking heads, but I don’t believe Rather was being racist. I think he was stereotyping conservatives as racists. That is, he wasn’t saying that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons, he was saying that Republicans will say that Obama couldn’t sell watermelons.
So while Rather wasn’t being racist, he was being a typical left-wing moonbat. And yes, I see the irony of me saying that.
Technorati Tags: Dan Rather and Other Barking Moonbats
The Centers for Disease Control says that Swine Flu is, pardon the expression, dying down in the US:
U.S. cases have been declining since October. An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says swine flu cases are still occurring and are likely to continue a while longer at some level.
But another expert said a future large wave of cases now seems very unlikely. The expert, Vanderbilt University’s Dr. William Schaffner, said the epidemic has “one foot in the grave.”
Meanwhile, the Whole Health Organization says that “pandemic activity is declining across most of the world” as deaths have topped — wait for it — 15,000 out of the 6.8 billion people on the planet. That translates to 0.00022 percent of the world population.
Makes the word “pandemic” a whole lot less scary, doesn’t it?
HT to both links to Drudge.
So PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will "moderate" tonight’s debate between the vice presidential candidates.
Michelle Malkin notes that Ifill’s book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, will be hitting the bookshelves on the day that she believes B. Hussein Obama will be sworn in as president of the United States:
My dictionary defines “moderator” as “the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting.” On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.
But there is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.
Indeed, the liberal media strike again.
PBS, that bastion of journalism that repays taxpayers by putting a liberal spin on every story, is asking its listeners to answer a question:
Now what would be interesting is the answer to a side-by-side question, "Do you think Barack Obama is qualified to serve as the President of the United States?"
Not that I expect a reasonable answer from anyone that can stomach watching PBS "journalism". That’s up to the rest of us. Go and cast your vote.
The myth that anti-Christian fanatics seem to take the most glee in is that she attempted to ban books from the town library while serving as mayor. This has been repeated often, even making a story in Time Magazine and Salon (2), and an email with a list of 90 books that Palin supposedly attempted to ban is shooting around leftist inboxes as we speak. (The list is fake, ripped off from this page.)
All this, according to the Wall Street Journal:
As it turns out, not only was the list a fake, but when the Anchorage Daily News investigated the story, it found no evidence that Palin had ever sought to remove books from the library. [City librarian] Baker (who was then named Emmons) did tell the local paper back in 1996 that Palin asked her, in the Daily News’s words, "about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose." Emmons "flatly refused to consider any kind of censorship."
Kilkenny makes an appearance in the Daily News story, quoting Palin as asking Baker at a City Council meeting, " ‘What would be your response if I asked you to remove some books from the collection?’ " Baker’s response was firm and negative, according to Kilkenny, who acknowledges that Palin did not cite any specific books for removal.
The chairman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee tells the Daily News that there is no evidence in her files of any censorship at the Wasilla library. As for Baker’s resignation, it appears to be unrelated to the putative censorship.
So not only is the book banning story patently false, but another piece of the "retribution queen" story takes a hit.
The center of useful idiots thinks that John McCain should "provide detailed, timely disclosure about his health."
So far, he has failed to meet this obligation to voters, even though he is now the presumed Republican nominee.
The Times claims McCain should reveal this information for two reasons. First, in this era of modern medical science and extended life spans, McCain could be the oldest man ever to become president. Second, he once had skin cancer — even though he beat cancer and today is cancer free, as evidenced by his lack of stops at hospitals for radiation treatments during the rigorous months on the campaign trail.
The Red Rag goes further, declaring:
No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health.
And where was the NY Times when half the voting population was demanding Kerry’s medical records from the Vietnam war? Ah, perhaps the Times thinks that sick people can’t lead while character is unimportant.
Jed Babbin from Online Human Events agrees with my earlier assessment of the Politico hit piece:
The rumor that Fred Thompson will quit the Republican presidential race if he finishes poorly in Iowa is not only false: it rises to the level of a political dirty trick aimed at reducing Thompson-backers’ turnout in tonight’s Iowa caucuses. . . .
Sources told me that Thompson’s campaign was already moving elements to South Carolina where they expect to do very well. If Thompson finished at the bottom of the pack in Iowa — which seems very unlikely — he would have to reassess his overall chances. But that seems unlikely. And Iowa is not a determinative race for the Republicans. It is very likely to be of lesser importance than a host of others, as John McCain, Rudy Giuliani — and Thompson — are betting. A candidate could easily go from a defeat there to win the nomination. . . .
In every political season, there are dirty tricks like this. Some originate from opposing camps and some from the media themselves. The Politico story is of the sort that even the television networks have managed to avoid. Saying that Thompson is going to quit after Iowa on the morning of the caucuses there is like announcing the election night results in New York and the Carolinas before the polls close on the West Coast. If even CBS News wouldn’t pull a stunt like that, why would The Politico?