Directors say war films make up for poor reporting (insufficient coverage of rapist soldiers)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071115/film_nm/war_dc ^ | 11/15/07 | Mike Collett-White

[cwb]

I didn’t get a chance to see it last night, but I taped the midnight showing and am actually watching it right now. You are so right about the way they portrayed the US Soldier. Within minutes into the film, all you see are soldiers that seem to be disconnected and oblivious to their surroundings. DePalma portrays every soldier as having contempt for the Iraqi people—even the children, whom he creates conflict with.

It’s so ironic that after 9/11 the Left had to run around looking for—and making excuses for why, the rest of the world hated America. In their attempts to explain this contempt (from our foreign policy to support for Israel, etc) they left out perhaps the main reason for this hatred; their portrayal of America to the rest of the world.

From Hollywood to the media to academia, liberals have now successfully exported and “projected” their own hatred for this country onto the rest of the world. From Hugo Chavez holding up and endorsing radical Professor Noam Chomsky’s book before the UN to our own Democrat politician’s slanderous words, these liberals have engrained a hatred into others for this country.

It is the height of hypocrisy to listen to the Left blame Bush for creating more terrorism and hatred for this country, when this has been the Left’s hallmark for decades. What was once confined to the classroom, newsroom and even screening room has now gone global with the advent of technology. Rosie’s rants and Hollywood’s hatred now find an audience of millions overseas, all willing to adopt their positions as an excuse to justify their hatred for America—just further endangering all of us. These people are the perpetuators of hate for this country—and it will eventually cause us great harm.

[cwb]

What’s worse is that even before Bush became president, many in the media were only too happy to present Hussein as a genuine threat—especially if it got Monica off the front page. From the Clinton era bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan to the Impeachment-Eve bombing of Iraq, the media was more than willing to accomadate Clinton’s claims of an immediate threat.

Heck, two days after Bush’s Inauguration, the NY Times with Bill Cohen (Clinton’s Sec. of Defense) were warning the incoming administration of Saddam and his reconstitution of WMDs. Contrary to Clinton’s own claims that he detroyed much of Saddam’s capabilities, Cohen was writing of new facilities being constructed and movement that suggested new weapons development.

It was this same media that reported on the sanctuary being offered to UBL by Saddam, with Clinton’s own DOJ unveiling a sealed indictment of UBL, for among other things—working cooperatively with the government of Iraq. Not only did the media not challenge any of these assertions, they were carried and authored by many of their journalists. Perhaps the media couldn’t go too much out on a limb because they were some of the sources that contributed to these stories.