When disaster strikes, you use the tool you know.
Disaster is staring Bush and Co. in the face, hence the tool is the Disney Fantasy Extravaganza now scheduled to be airing this evening.
Bush, Rove and Co. are now advertising just how inept they are at everything except politics and propaganda by hitching their hopes of electoral deniability to their new movie, "The Path to 9/11." While the moment is also fraught with danger, we need to understand just why those in power would choose such a thumb-fingered approach to the problem of cover for the election they are poised to steal.
Politics and its accompanying tool, political propaganda, are the only tools they are competent to handle. Therefore, all problems appear to them through the lens of what they know. They need to be able to say they won and have enough people believe them without sniggering to avoid overt challenges. It would be entirely pathetic if not for the fact that so many Americans seem unable to discriminate between fact and fiction. Since this is bound to come up over and over again it would be well to use this incident to demonstrate to the public the difference between the two. That is step one.
Knowing is the best defense; the people need to know and we can show them. Propaganda, challenged and used as a tool, can sputter and die in the face of the truth. According to reports, the movie has built not only on material from the official government 9/11 but from other sources, artfully spun to obfuscate the sheer incompetence of the Bush Cabal while injecting scenes featuring the salacious saga of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
The overall affect aimed for is one of "See? It could have happened to anyone!"
Those who did the writing were from Hollywood and connected with Youth With A Mission and other groups associated with David Horowitz.
We know that is not true. It took amazing levels of incompetence to achieve 9/11.
The Bush Cabal is desperately hoping this movie will save them. We should aim at having it bury them instead.
It is well to remember that there is no exit strategy, either from the Iraq or the White House. Therefore they are desperate for the means of staying on in perpetuity, something elements of the military have let them know will not be tolerated.
And why would Disney and ABC cooperate in this effort? We all know the answer. The centralization and consolidation of media in the United States makes this kind of thing a natural extension of the use of the political tools Rove finds familiar. They looked around and decided that this film could solve several problems if they avoided the bodice ripper-type fantasy they foisted on us with DC 9/11, trotted out for the 2004 campaign. That project did not work but evidently they decided it wasn't the technique that was at fault but the way it was scripted.
That film, written by Lionel Chetwynd, lacked credibility and dropped through the cracks. This one will be a more polished effort. Therefore it needs to be challenged intelligently and point by point this can be done. What they wish to see as a drama on a huge and magnificent scale is actually pathetically small and petty when viewed from the front row. Putting together the whole story reduces it to a satire.
Let me share a few small items of interest that fill in some holes. I happened to talk to Lionel just before Air Force One picked him up for the purpose of working on the aforementioned film. I placed the call to ask about how it felt to be sued by David Horowitz for showing the bad judgment of helping David out. Those were, I think, my words, certainly now Chetwynd's. Lionel was, however, very excited about the ride on the airplane though, you could tell that. About the lawsuit, Lionel was just glad it was to be settled. The money was probably about the same but it took far less time.
Horowitz has been extremely helpful to the Neocons in several ways.
I had noticed several of these suits involving Horowitz because I knew the people involved. Manny Klausner, for instance, an old chum of mine from the Good Old Days of early Libertarianism, was acting as Horowitz's attorney. I first met Manny when he spoke to the local LP region of West Los Angeles in my living room in 1975. We had intended to have the meeting at a local restaurant but the rowdy behavior of some of the non-libertarians caused the event to be relocated. I don't remember the topic, but Manny is always entertaining.
So I saw Manny occasionally. When I was elected Southern Vice Chairman of the California LP in 1979 we had another encounter of note.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
