Posted on 01/25/2016 8:27:32 AM PST by thetallguy24
Later
Americans as a whole haven’t read much since Henry Ford made automobiles affordable. Bibliophiles have been a niche subculture since that time, and people who read a book now and then seldom choose politics.
So the book was never going to hit as big a market as a movie.
I saw it on Saturday. Good number of people in the theater.
It was a war movie, and seemed good in that respect, conveying the confusion, etc. Didn’t touch at all on who was responsible for ignoring them, or why.
I understand why they didn’t touch on that, but in the end, I didn’t regard it as a “brave” movie by a director.
Personally, I found myself steaming in that movie, when they show the F-16s on the runway at Aviano, idle, canopies up. I was pretty angry leading up to that, so I found myself steaming when they did that scene.
And then the idiotic cover-up, and blame on a anti-video protest gone bad...
The whole incident was shameful, front to back.
I highly recommend it! It was a fantastic and very well done movie that does a great job at remaining apolitical, while telling a story that EVERYONE needs to hear. These men are/were hero’s that deserve to be celebrated. Hillary should burn for her incompetence and inaction on that night and during this even.
I recommend the film.
Good movie, all should see.
Could have been MUCH more political but wasn’t, didn’t dwell on WHO gave the stand-down order.
What if they made a Watergate movie that focused exclusively on the blow-by-blow of the burglars breaking in and getting arrested...?
That wouldn’t happen in a million years —the break-in would take up about 10 minutes of a full 2 hour movie. Overwhelmingly the focus would be on the treacherous, high-level players not on-scene who were responsible.
Michael Bay didn’t do that, here, and should have.
The reason he didn’t was because Hollywood would make sure HIS CAREER WOULD BE OVER —FINITO.
You should still see it, yeah.
I also recommend the movie, and I wouldn’t say that it was depressing overall. The valor of our men is the subject and their courage is outstanding, despite the odds. However, it is heart-breaking to be introduced to the four characters whom we know will die. Sean Smith has only a small role, but “Rone” (Tyrone Woods) has a large role.
What I remember is one of our men (Jack Silva perhaps) seeing an entourage of cars leaving all at once and wondering “Does anyone else get the sense that everyone knows what’s happening except for us?” The abandonment of the Libyan guards and the non-closure of the back gate makes us wonder if they were corrupt or incompetant (the same questions I ask of Hillary and Obama). The absence of the latter, in being mentioned and in their non-action, is telling.
I also wonder at the one line about those in the CIA annex....”Bob” (the “delaying” CIA “chief”) says that there are personnel from Harvard who need protection, and thus the delay sending the men to rescue Stevens. But what were those CIA people doing? The intelligence needed sounded like more than just gun running (although the allusion to guns is also in the film). And WHY haven’t we heard from those 26 people who were rescued by our men?
I read the book too and think the movie extremely well made. I was struck by the contrasts, of incipient violence with the young boys seen playing around as well as the beauty of 2-3 shots of Islamic architecture. The ripped cloth in “Zombieland” was also effective, as were the the views of the Benghazi women mourning their losses.
I recommend the film highly. It is violent but not as gory as it might have been.
Benghazi ping.
Let Republicanprofessor know if you want on or off this ping list.
Comments on the movie....have you seen it yet?
Hubby, daughter and myself saw it opening weekend. very good movie. Will even see it a second time this week just to support it. Go and tell others.
Liberals can read?
Extremely intense and it accurately reflects the nature, tempo and intensity of combat. Without getting too overly artistic, I think the absence of a political message or even undertone only serves to emphasize the ineptitude and/or cunning of those who could have influenced the outcome and saved lives. It makes one wonder, “Where were they (political and military leadership)?”
I found myself wondering yet again: “Why would the State Department put an ambassador in a home with limited security in a city that our allies have already evacuated?”; “Why would the US take no action to save a US ambassador?”; “Why would the government not even permit a fly-by or low pass of a couple F-16s?”; “What was Chris Stevens really doing in Benghazi?”
If you haven’t seen it, prepare to leave thoroughly pissed off.
Saw it on Saturday. No one in the audience left their seat for two and a half hours. Emotionally draining and I plan on buying it when it is released. While Clinton and Obama were never mentioned, the movie left no doubt that the administration was derelict.
LOL, kinda like real life where the journalist refuse to properly align the blame to Hillary and Obama yet it's obvious they were derelict in soo many ways and have blood on their hands.
saw it. wonderful. bump for later reading
At first I thought they should have ended the movie with Hillary's lying speech, but then I thought no, it was about the guys. They didn't need to indict Hillary.
Anyway, see the movie and read the book.
Yes, Stevens schedule was in one of the emails Hillary’s staff cut and pasted. So, the terrorists knew he was going to be meeting someone at Benghazi.
Hillary murdered her own Ambassador.
Actually, that’s hard to judge .. partly because of the new book methods .. you can purchase an e-copy and never enter a bookstore.
So, I think people are reading a lot more because of that. What they’re reading, I have no idea.
Too bad .. she thinks she deleted it .. but the FBI FOUND IT. I think it’s hilarious.
She has always been strongly leaning to Conservative .. but the left will not listen to her.
At one point the guys are being attacked by folks in a pickup truck with a machine gun mounted on the truck bed. One of them says (as best as I remember it), "Got to get that technical."
Okay, what's a "technical?"
During relief operations in Somalia, some years ago, aid convoys were in danger of being ambushed by tribesmen who wanted the stuff for themselves. The relief agencies would hire other tribes as convoy guards. The guards would use Toyota pickup trucks with machine guns mounted on the truck bed. However, the relief agencies didn't want to admit they were hiring one set of goons to protect themselves against another set of goons. So they described the payments as being for "technical services."
The trucks themselves came to be referred to as "technicals."
Watch for that. It goes by quickly.
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.