Flight 93

Last week I was thumbing through trailers online and I came across this for "United 93".

It is affecting.

Predictably Newsweek thinks "we aren't ready for this" and "nobody wants to see it".

I would reword the Newsweek piece and say Newsweek doesn't want you too see this. Also think about Newsweek's sudden circumspection regarding what films should and should not be made. Why include the following?

"Should the film have been made at all? More to the point, will anyone want to see it?"

Certainly that sort of analysis isn't applied to films like Fahrenheit 911 or Brokeback Mountain. Suddenly when a film challenges their editorial point of view they go all jello legged and question if the film should even be made?


And in case you missed it since Newsweek and much of the MSM have lot's of things they don't think you need to see or know about I'd encourage everyone to get up to speed on this.

To be fair the press and the left have always insisted there was no "evidence of an operational link" between Saddam and al Qaeda. Because they knew the import of the word "operational" would be lost on their readers. We have known about ties between Saddam and terrorism for years, as well as ties to al Qaeda. Now we are finding out that there were operational links. Did Iraqi agents hijack any of those planes? Nope. Did Saddam and Iraq provide money, training, sanctuary and operational aid to al Qaeda? Yes. What should we have done about that? Well that is a debate we are having but the above begs a different question.

Why isn't evidence of an operational link trumpeted in the news?

If I didn't know better I'd say the press is selectively reporting fact to better craft opinion for the American public.

Think I'm crazy? How are casualty rates for US troops in Iraq this month? You haven't heard? They're down dramatically. Hmmm must have missed that on ABC, NPR, NY Times, et al. Why wouldn't the MSM report on that? Why lower casualties for the US when the press is reporting chaos? Because as was stated from the beginning Iraqis are taking over security for the country. Of course the press spins that as civil war. But lunch is over and I digress.

Update: The LA Times stakes out a position about (Warning graphic) what they will show you. Make no mistake the MSM is on the side of the terrorists. Whether the media understands that or not is another question. Should we all know the price of war and what we ask of our soldiers? Absolutely. But why is the LA Times running a story about soldiers injuries from November in a month that sees the lowest casualty rate since the beginning of the war?

Tangentially Related: Nearly 500,000 new jobs is good news for our economy right? Not if you are ABC news. He has a link to some more notable quotes of the week. When the MSM can't hide news, they spin it as bad. Think about it if the press can dissemble this blatantly about news happening in this country and get away with it.... What hope do have of knowing exactly what is going on in Iraq? At least what hope if we listen to only them...