The decision of the National Geographic Channel to air a film about the successful hunt for Osama bin Laden just two days before Election Day had already generated controversy. But the promotional materials released to the press this week confirm the suspicion that it is what even the New York Times was prepared to call a “political stunt.” The movie, “Seal Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” is being promoted by Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood mogul as well as a major bundler for President Obama. That and the release date was enough for many to think the film was an unpaid campaign ad, but as the Times reports:
Promotional materials and a copy of the movie provided to The New York Times this week also show that the film has been recut, using news and documentary footage to strengthen Mr. Obama’s role and provide a window into decision-making in the White House. … Some of the Obama moments were added at the suggestion of Mr. Weinstein, they said, using material gathered by Meghan O’Hara, a producer who worked closely with the documentarian Michael Moore on politically charged projects like “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Sicko.”
While the normally low-rated National Geographic will likely get a lot of extra viewers for the broadcast, it has also opened itself up to charges of political motivation. The channel will try and use the movie to promote their other shows, but there’s no question that the main beneficiary is the president. Given the timing, the movie appears to be nothing more than an effort to aid the Democrat’s extended touchdown dance about the bin Laden killing and boost his faltering chances for re-election.
While the president deserves credit for ordering the raid, the idea that he would be transformed into the star of a film about a hunt that began before his presidency is a politically-motivated insult to the intelligence professionals and Navy SEALs who pulled off the operation. The head of National Geographic Channel has tried to alibi his way out of responsibility for this travesty, but in doing so he only proved that his insistence that the film wasn’t “propaganda” was untrue:
Howard T. Owens, the chief executive of the National Geographic Channel, who joined the call, said his company had insisted on removing a scene that showed Mitt Romney appearing to oppose the raid.
That National Geographic would have to do that shows just how skewed the film must be. Just like putting the president at the center of the film, mentioning Romney at all illustrates the film’s political intent. Owens’ claim in the film’s promotional material that the president made a “terrible political decision” in ordering the action is as absurd as Obama’s own statement in the last presidential debate that seemed to indicate that he thought doing so might have been unpopular. In fact, nothing could have been more popular or more likely to have the support of the entire American people. The idea that the president showed “courage” in going ahead and doing something for which he receive unanimous applause is nothing more than politically inspired hogwash.
Ironically, the White House has been on the hot seat for aiding a different bin Laden film. The movie on the subject being produced by the same people who came up with “The Hurt Locker” — Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal — was allegedly given access to classified information by the administration in what was another attempt to bolster the president’s reputation. But the Weinstein film, though a cable TV release rather than one that will be shown in theaters, will have the advantage of being the first one to gain a national audience.
Nothing that airs on National Geographic will change the outcome of the election. Yet the willingness of the entertainment industry to bolster the Obama campaign in this manner does make their bias crystal clear. The notion that the president did something heroic in authorizing the mission is nothing more than a political myth that no amount of Hollywood puffery will make true. But it is unfortunate that the desire to make Obama the star will inevitably mean less credit is given to the SEALs who put their lives on the line.
As much as I despise campaign finance laws as being a violation of the First Amendment, I would love to see someone go after the producers for failing to declare this as an in-kind contribution. Of course, that's about as likley as Holder admitting that he had no excuse for Fast and Furious, or for dropping the default conviction against Black Panthers for voter intimidation.
When information monopoly is the order of the day, a second look at the First Amendment is in order. n nGlaring sins of omission and commission by mega-media like the NYT, WAPO, CBS, NBC and ABC and Time Magazine deliberately confuse and misdirect voters and profoundly corrupt the national political process. The lockstep liberal media that dominate information in America need their wings clipped.
Let no one say Obama didn't sacrifice to get Bin Laden. n nI understand he was called off the golf course to give his assent, and go and watch the action in real time on TV. n nThe fact that he gave his assent, after turning it donw on two other occasions, shows that he bravely finally decided not to worry too much about the political implications to him of a potential mission failure. n nHe looked fate in the eye, and said, 'I don't care what happened to Jimmy Carter, it's a go!' n nHe really does have a spine of steel! n n
I bought gold from David Batson. He stole my money. He uses articles like this to get into deep pockets. r nr nDavid Batson is a liar and a thief.
Whatever harm this propaganda film will do Romney, it does not compare to his failure to expose the president’s self serving use of the OBL victory.
Every American would have jumped at the chance to nail Osama, but no patriot would have done it Obama’s way. Risking the lives of 24 SEALs, losing a $60 million dollar top secret helicopter, enraging the Pakistanis on whom our Afghanistan effort depends, exposing the US to terrorist avengers, all of it could have been averted. One or two smart bombs from a stealth plane would have turned OBL’s house to rubble and ashes. The mysterious explosion, attributable to a gas explosion, would not have been mentioned outside the Abbottabad newspaper. Even if the Pakistani authorities had guessed the source they would have kept quiet, not wanting the tasked for sheltering Osama. It would have taken weeks and probably months before the outside world realized that OBL was kaput. It would have been all gain, and no pain for the US. Except that the president would not have been able to claim immediate credit. And then, the work of an iron bomb would not have been as heroic as the president’s SEALs descending guns blazing.
It is claimed we needed to recover the cache of information in Osama’s computer, to roll up al Qaeda cells and scotch their plans. Then why did the president announce the seizure of OBL and his data on the very night of the feat? Before the CIA had those hard drives and thumb drives translated the president was jubilantly advising those terrorist cells that they were compromised and had best change their hide outs. For the sake of instantly taking credit he vitiated the one advantage using the SEALs over a bomb presented.
Why has no one hammered Obama for this selfishness, for his self serving misuse of nation security. He risked the lives of our men, our diplomatic relations with a country on whom we are dependent, the safety of our nation, to gain a personal, political advantage.
Romney’s pusillanimity, bis negligence and fecklessness on an issue where he could have had the president on the ropes, instead of taking victory rounds, is unforgivable. At least Obama’s side is willing and able to fight hard.
How about a show called "Mission Accomplished" where a U.S. President dressed in fligh gear lands on the deck of an aircraft carrier to proclaim a phony victory in a wasted war while failing to capture the guys responsbile for the first successful attack on our nation's capitol since 1814.
That really is shameful. n nNot a word from our principled secretary of state, either. n nOh well, as the centipedes crawl over him, I am sure he will take solace in knowing he played a bit part in the reelection efforts of one Barack Obama (formerly known as Barry Soetero).