Soviet dictator Josef Stalin was a movie fan who
understood how cinematic entertainment could be used to soldify power by manipulating the perspective of the masses via the power of story. The American political and media landscape is by no means immune from the
practice of historical revisionsim via the cinema for the benefit of those in power. (Or the castigation of those in power.) Although, it must be said, there is no reason to suspect that our current leader is behind the scenes actively manipulating the cinematic process like a modern day
Jonathan Shields.
That task is left to his adoring clutches of wannabe Hollywood moguls.
(more below the fold)
Like the myth makers of the past, propagandists of the modern era fully understand that the truth does not matter. It's the emotional message that matters. Certainly truth does not matter to the masses of right wing faithful who truly believe deep in their hearts that Bill Clinton is to blame for the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
It does not matter to them that in the late 1990's the Republican leadership of the GOP led Congress actively criticized and fought Clinton's efforts to combat terrorism and deal with Iraq.
It does not matter to them that in early 2001 FBI agents who were actively investigating terrorist connections of Bin Laden family members residing in the USA were told by the Bush White House to "back off" that investigation.
It does not matter to them that on April 6, 2001 the leader of the Northern Alliance resistance in Afghanistan, Ahmed Shah Massoud, spoke before the EU parliment and said:
"If President Bush doesn't help us, these terrorists will damage the US and Europe very soon."
A Defense Intelligence Agency report thereafter
reported that Massoud was likely assassinated by Al Qaida on September 9, 2001 because he
...had gained 'limited knowledge' regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. [..] ...he may have been assassinated on September 9, 2001, because he "began to warn the West.
It does not matter to them that on August 9, 2001 President Bush was given a
briefing entitled: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US".
It does not matter to them that on September 4, 2001 then NSA Director Rice decides that the armed Predator drone program is not yet ready to be used in possible campigns to strike at high value targets such as bin Laden.
It does not matter to them that Bush has had five years to kill bin Laden, with the greatest military in the history of the world firmly placed in the area and ready to strike, not to mention an elite special forces group charged solely with the finding and capturing or killing bin Laden. All to no avail. All options not available to Clinton during his presidency.
These established facts simply do not matter to those most affected by ideological propaganda and disinformation meant to reinforce their world view and their worship of their ideological leader.
One need go no further than the ever truculent and always purblind Instapundit Glenn Reynolds to see the affect of propaganda. Reynolds zeros right in on the Sandy Berger scene in "Path to 9/11", the one which is completely made up, a lie, it never happened, and writes the following:
After the pants incident, its hard for me to respect Berger, and easy for me to see him as overly concerned with how things will play in the press.
Translation: "Berger is to blame for 9/11." No mention that the scene is fiction and a
serious misrepresenation of the facts as they are known, a reality that
many of Reynolds fellow conservatives were sensible enough to recognize.
Reynolds then proceeds to quote Austin Bay, another true believer in lies as truth:
"I see why Clinton is afraid of it. The movie serves as a reminder of all of the terrorist attacks and attempted attacks. Clinton went eight years and Bush eight months playing cops and robbers while Al Qaeda was implementing unrestricted warfare."
Yes, Clinton had eight years to screw it up, Bush did it in only eight months. But, of course, terrorism was
douwright bad during the eight years
prior to Clinton, not to mention the eight years
prior to that.
The willful idelogical myopia of some is truly staggering at times.
Reynolds continues with his praise of the propaganda, embracing it entirely, likely knowing full well of its basis in fabricated lies:
Clinton looks very bad. So does Sandy Berger. [...] Madeleine Albright looks pretty bad, too, on the question of informing the Pakistanis that we were trying to kill bin Laden in time for him to get away. Easy to see why she's unhappy. Is that bit true? I'm not sure.
No, of course
it is not. Is Reynolds playting dumb here or is he truly ignorant of the truth? Again, it boggles the mind to think that this man is teaching at the university level. And, then he punctuates all of this with the following:
Tenet looks like an ass-coverer. So, so far, I'd say it's pretty accurate . . . .(empahsis added)
Keep fully in mind that Reynolds is praising fictional representations, some likely libelous, and noting how those lies are "pretty accurate".
The mission of the propagnada has been fulfilled. Imagine for a moment, if "Path to 9/11" has this type of tactit mind control over a respected and educated professor at a major university what type of message is being conveyed to the "great unwashed".
In the end, people will believe what they wish to believe. One cannot force someone to alter their world view if it is rooted in an emotional appeal to ideology.
Eventually, reality and truth win out. Always. And, like the great cinematic epics depicting Stalin as the father of Russian humanity and power, the propaganda comes off as dated and narrow minded and obtuse.
Lies burn out. Truth shines.
Cross posted at The S.N.A.F.U Principle