You want to compare that to making jokes about hitting Romney?
When? While he is pumping his own gas, a half mile from his home that we can walk up to?
Posted on 12/18/2014 10:13:05 AM PST by Kaslin
By gum, he sounds like presidential material to me. Your move, Jeb.
.@SonyPictures don’t cave, fight: release @TheInterview free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight #Ebola.
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) December 18, 2014
More than 13,000 retweets as I write this. Clearly there’s a demand for countermeasures among an American public that doesn’t like the idea of foreigners, especially savages like the Kim cabal, holding veto power over their culture. (Too bad China, Kim’s chief patron, already sort of does.) Am I right, though, in thinking that no major Republican pol aside from Romney has said anything about this yet? Newt Gingrich called the hack attack on Sony America’s first clear defeat in cyberwar but he’s not “major” anymore the way that Paul, Cruz, Walker, Rubio, and, yes, Romney and the rest of the ’16 gang are. Why so quiet? Obama’s not saying much either:
“Well, the cyber-attack is very serious. We’re investigating, we’re taking it seriously,” Obama said in the interview. “We’ll be vigilant, if we see something that we think is serious and credible, then we’ll alert the public. But for now, my recommendation would be that people go to the movies.”
No finger-pointing at North Korea, no vows of retaliation, although he may have strategic reasons for that. One unnamed U.S. official told NBC News yesterday that America “can’t let this go unanswered,” so retaliation — probably — is coming. In keeping with the cyberwar spirit of plausible deniability, Obama might be playing this low key so that when the power mysteriously goes down at North Korea’s military bases, he can kinda sorta pretend that he’s surprised by it. Although … in that case, why are the feds leaking to U.S. media that they think the NorKs are behind all this? It’s easier to preserve plausible deniability when you’re not making public accusations. As it is, it looks like our reprisal might be the cyberwar equivalent of Ukraine recently being invaded from the east by mysterious troops with no national flag on their uniforms. Everyone, including the enemy, will know who’s responsible, but some measure of deniability for political purposes is maintained.
As for Romney’s idea, I’m not sure why he seized on Ebola as the cause Sony should champion instead of, say, charity for the families of Japanese and South Koreans who’ve had relatives killed or captured by the North. Maybe Mitt figured that would only antagonize Kim further, which Sony would be reluctant to do. Also, he’s assuming that Sony wants to release “The Interview” but was thwarted by theater circuits that refused to show it. Is that really true? The hackers threatened the theater groups with terrorism but they’ve already done actual cyberterror damage to Sony; if the film was released, Sony almost certainly would have been their main target in the aftermath with more leaks from the trove of data that the hackers lifted. I think Sony was relieved when the theater circuits walked, as it gave them a reason to pull the film entirely and let this episode quietly fade after a few days of terrible press. That’s why they’ve already ruled out releasing the film in other formats. If they followed the Romney/National Review plan, they might end up getting cybernuked anyway. And A.J. Delgado may well be right: If Sony releases the film somehow, even for free, it could complicate their claim against insurers to recoup some of the cost of the film. A total loss might be the only way to get paid.
Exit question one: Would more politicians be speaking up if “The Interview” weren’t a dumb stoner-ish comedy but a serious film with greater artistic merit? I’m actually glad it’s the former and not the latter. Having a lame movie at the heart of this clarifies the principle that all speech, not just “high value” speech, should be safe from censorship by a foreign government. Exit question two: Where does this attitude come from? Explain it to me, because I don’t get it.
How #stupid- #Sony could have made a fictional movie but instead insults unstable country w/nuclear weapons.Sony= #idiots
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) December 17, 2014
anyone who has been to NK knows how dangerous it is and would not have been so stupid to make that movie;
— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) December 17, 2014
Russia and China have nukes too and don’t take criticism well. Iran will soon be in the same boat. Are they off-limits now? Let’s make a list of who it’s safe and not safe to goof on. Al Qaeda must be at the top, right?
You want to compare that to making jokes about hitting Romney?
When? While he is pumping his own gas, a half mile from his home that we can walk up to?
Pocket pool?
Who you approve of and who you don’t is not the dividing line to me. Returning evil for evil makes all parties evil.
I am not saying there is never a time to kill. But if the point is that Kim is so evil that someone should kill him, make that point. This was a movie that is billed as a comedy. Of course the recipient of the “joke” feels threatened. Who wouldn’t. That is not funny. It is stupid. In no way does it advance anything good.
No, Mr. Newt is the presidential material; this was his idea, not Romney’s, and Mr. Newt also said it should be released internationally, and that it should be subtitled in Korean.
What are you blabbering about, that had nothing to do with my post.
The dictator of North Korea who lives in a sealed fortress, who has people in his own government killed, to the degree of having their families killed as well, and whose people will never see this film, or even hear of it, unless he personally wants them too, is not under threat of a nut being motivated by a comedy movie, and he knows it.
A guy who lives in the open in America, is. It is nutty to be making your statements.
I agree with you. While I do not like the idea of being held hostage to threats of violence, which may or may not be real, I have to ask again if anyone in the production of this movie, from Seth Rogan to the head of Sony, ever stopped to think if this movie was a good idea.
“if Sony can make an assassination movie because our culture eats it up then I suppose NK can hack into their information and make threats, which is hunky-dorey in their culture.”
Free Speech and Murder are morally equivalent?
I caught some of the Producers of Interview last movie, ‘Neighbors’ and I wouldn’t watch Interview for free.
You are saying it would be wrong to make the Romney murder flick because it would actually threaten Romney. Whereas the murder flick against Jong-un has no chance of threatening him because of that closed society.
I disagree that there is no threat to Jong-un. Lots of people seem ok with that. Even if you were correct, it is a tasteless thing to do and would make anyone FEEL threatened.
I agree Jong-un is a monster. I said that before.
I still think making the movie was stupid.
For free is the right idea, I have no interest in providing capital to SONY and the Hollyweed left.
No one has been murdered. The movie is about murder and the threats were about murder. No one has actually been murdered. Both are speech.
Tells you where Romney’s head’s at. Father of ‘Romneycare’ wants Sony to give away their movie for free.
That make sense.
How about they grow a pair and release it. How about they grow a bigger pair and tell people to bring their guns, and if they see something, shoot something.
At least release it in open carry states. They aren’t afraid of some diseased freak in Pyong Ying Yang.
Or they can leverage a weak America, postpone release, then just when America surrenders they release it for billions in profits.
Whatever the (lack of) artistic merits, this movie reminds me of “The Great Dictator” starring Charlie Chaplin in 1936. There was absolutely no question which dictator was lampooned. Do you suppose anyone here cared what Hitler thought? Sony and the theater chains are cowards.
You really think that you can reach the dictator of North Korea, or enter North Korea at all, as just a casual nut case?
While your concern for the most evil dictator on earth is interesting, here is a movie that didn’t get banned.
“”Death of a President is a 2006 British high concept mockumentary political thriller film about the fictional assassination of George W. Bush, the 43rd U.S. President, on 19 October 2007 in Chicago, Illinois. “”
Yep, it is something entirely different to make mocking films of Hitler and Kim Jong-un.
Allahpundit has always been a Romney fan. If Romney broke wind, Allahpundit would seize on the aroma as evidence that Romney is presidential timber.
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.