Ray McGovern: Frontline's Timid Iraq Retrospective

[laststeamtrain]

Frontline's Timid Iraq Retrospective

By Ray McGovern
March 26, 2008

Frontline’s “Bush’s War” on PBS Monday and Tuesday evening was a nicely put-together rehash of the top players’ trickery that led to the attack on Iraq, together with the power-grabbing, back-stabbing and limitless incompetence of the occupation.

Except for an inside-the-beltway tidbit here and there – for example, about how the pitiable Secretary of State Colin Powell had to suffer so many indignities at the hands of other type-A hard chargers – Frontline added little to the discussion.

Notably missing was any allusion to the unconscionable role of the Fourth Estate as indiscriminate cheerleader for the home team, nor any mention that the invasion was a serious violation of international law. But those omissions, I suppose, should have come as no surprise.

Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel.

It was more infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation’s history.

Despite recent acknowledgements from the likes of Alan Greenspan, Gen. John Abizaid and others that oil and permanent (or, if you prefer, “enduring”) military bases were among the main objectives, Frontline avoided any real discussion of such delicate factors.

<more>

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032608a.html

[grasswire]

1. well, the film editor on the show is a freeper

As discovered by a DU member. FWIW.

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/posts-by:filmcutter/

[ThomWV]

2. I think he's full of shit

There might not have been much new information in the show for people who have been in touch with reality for the last 8 years but that excludes three quarters of the country. What Frontline did last night, and much more-so on monday night, was put the whole mess together in an understandable package that 'connected all the dots'. It showed quite clearly who started this war, what petty people we have and have had at the top, and made it clear that we were lied to from the beginning. Many people do not see that yet, but this television show, the best produced for general consumption yet, certainly would dispel all but the most hard core of the non-believers of those idiotic notions.

[housewolf]

3. You make some good points

Thanks.

[laststeamtrain]

5. Well, I don't know about Ray McGovern being "full of shit", but there's

good to infotainment like Bush's War. The thing is, as usual, the people who should see it, the "three quarters of the country", didn't.

You like powerful documentaries? Try this one (if you haven't already): The Power of Nightmares

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

Speaking of shit & people who are full of it; there was a bumper crop blathering away in Bush's War. I guess they wouldn't have been in it unless the makers had allowed them to shovel it one more time.

:hi:

[Oeditpus Rex]

6. My sentiments exactly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3061441&mesg_id=3061575

[Supersedeas]

11. well said

[Supersedeas]

4. Oil, Saudi support for Sunni extremists, Media coverage were all lacking

[coalition_unwilling]

7. I thought the main thing that was lacking was any mention whatsoever

(except for brief clips of the worldwide Feb 15, 2003 demos) of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, et. al.

And, instead of having all the players commenting on the action, it would have been interesting to have the color commentary done by Daniel Ellsburg, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Amy Goodman. Now that would have made for one hell of a doco, imho. Or any time they showed a clip of L. Paul Bremer, they could have cut to a comment by Medea Benjamin. (I saw her take on Richard Perle one night on the Lehrer Newshour and she verbally bitch-slapped Perle into oblivion.)

[peacetalksforall]

9. Someone could take all the testimony and commentary of the four

people you name and make a powerful parallel to PBS.

I fit in between pap and tremendous. I know how long it took me to realize how forgiving I had been of Clinton for the Welfare Act and NAFTA and how long it took me until my estimation and support started to plummet. It was a very hurtful truth after spending eight years defending them (Clintons). A person has to ease into the truth sometimes. I was slow and reluctant to change. I'm sure there are Republicans like that out thre - for those people who are in the morphing process - it could be seen as a show that eases them into truth - especially, wildly unrealistic self-claiming patriots who have denounced everyone else who was not fanatic in support Dick.

For we who have been privy to going to a deeper level through DU and all the links, it was a mid-weight program.

Ask anyone who learned from PBS who Franklin is, what AIPAC is, whether they have even read one of the earliest books - Clarke which was also carefully written to some extent, but quite revealing, if they knew we wanted bases in Iraq from Day 1. Easing in. Necessary sometimes.

Sad that PBS is not truly public. What a grip on everyone. Dick has been quite skillful in suppression, dark space behind dark curtains, and a black canopy covering the entire country - WHEREVER THERE HAS BEEN A COOPERATING CORPORATION OR FOUNDATION.

[peacetalksforall]

8. Read it all. Recommend for tidbits of background and opinions. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Only so much can fit into 4-1/2 hours

when you're trying to compress the crimes of the last six-plus years. I think the doc was well done given time constraints. From what I understand there are expanded versions of the interviews and much more information on the PBS website.