Anyone else NOT thrilled by Clarke's movie deal.

[skypilot]

I was really disappointed when I heard this. I think the timing is horrible. Clarke was sort of a star witness before the 9/11 commission and even then the Republicans were saying that he was just trying to get publicity for his book. Now that he has sold the movie rights it seems to me that he has just handed them more ammo with which to discredit him. I don't feel good about this.

[xultar]

1. I'm HAPPY, think about WAG the DOG, Think how CBS barred showing

the Regans,
The only way America will see the story is if it is played on TeeV for them. The ditto heads aren't going to buy his book. They will watch the movie on FREE cable or network TeeV.

It will be GREAT!

[ewagner]

2. Mixed emotions

I tend to agree that it will give the Repubs more ammunition but on the other hand, if Clarke's powerful message gets circulated in mass, popular culture, there's no telling how much impact it could have.

It's a gamble so deal dealer deal.

[mikey_1962]

3. Reinforces suspicions i had already...

[skypilot]

5. What were your suspicions??

I have to admit that I had some inchoate suspicions of my own while trying to read his book (yes,TRYING to read it) but you go first.

[mikey_1962]

12. a bureaucratic climber with sharp elbows, with the "If they had only

listened to me" syndrome. But I tend to look for the worst in people;

Also he had a book to sell... I am not saying he lied, i believe he used the stage for shameless self-promotion.

He is following the rational pursuit of self-interest

[Bridget Burke]

22. You aren't the only one who often looks for the worst in people.

But I'll stick to the facts here.

If they had listened to Clarke, it is quite possible that 9/11 could have been prevented.

The book was ready for publication months ago but the White House held it up for a security check. The timing of its release is not Clarke's doing.

The phrases used by his discreditors are quite familiar by now.

[mikey_1962]

27. Well he said no, it wouldn't have been prevented in his

testimony

[Hamlette]

31. not true

Clarke said in his testimony that had the WH followed the plan he prepared in January, 2001 it would not have prevented 9-11. When asked if the WH had connected the dots and acted on the intel he and Tenent were giving it throughout the summer of 2001, 9-11 MIGHT have been prevented.

BIG difference.

Like saying O'Niel backtracked, which of course, anyone paying attention knows he did not.

[trumad]

13. You didn't answer the question

what are your suspicions... Don't come in with these drive by posts and then take off without answering them... It makes us go hmmmmmm!

[mikey_1962]

16. See #12

[trumad]

24. Not good enough and a lousy answer

Using the stage to get the truth out is how you do it... What did you want him to do? Sit quietly with his hands folded? You're not saying he lied??? How good of you...:eyes:

[mikey_1962]

26. And I always speak well of you...

[trumad]

28. I couldn't care less

but I wonder about those who criticize a guy like Clarke.... What possible motive could you have by dissing the only guy who's told the truth in this whole debacle?

[mikey_1962]

29. I only said he was a shameless self-promoter...If his goal was the

truth and only that and not to make a buck; why then the need for a book and movie????

[mouse7]

33. Books are THE most accepted way to document history

There is no form considered more legitimate for the documentation of historical issues than book form.

In this media culture, movies are also an accepted form of documenting history. Clarke is trying to gather support for his ideas on counter-terrorism. Anyone with a clue knows the best way to do that is to make the case in the media.

[skypilot]

37. But it's still important just WHICH medium...

...you make the case in. Yes, books and movies are accepted forms of documenting things but we all know that there are crappy books and crappy movies put out on any given subject.

My fear is that by the time this movie comes out the Republicans will have worked Clarke over pretty well now that he's handed them a reason to accuse him of being a publicity hound and self-promoter. It had better be one hell of a movie.

[trumad]

34. What better way to get it out ?

Again..you bring no facts here supporting that he's a shameless self-promoter.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

45. Did you read Clarke's book? I think you would change your tune.

It is hardly self-promoting. It is a concise history of terrorism in the last 30 years. Clarke gives plenty of credit to his colleagues and specifically to John O'Neill, former FBI counter-terrorism expert who perished in the WTC.

[MSgt213]

4. I don't really care. Bush & Co are stealing and wasting our tax dollars

left and right and lying to our faces about it. Halliburton and these other carpet baggers are'nt giving anybody nothing. The republicans are writing books left and right and making money and not giving anybody nothing. So who cares if a 30 year government employee makes a buck? I sure don't.

[skypilot]

10. I don't care about Clarke making a buck.

I have a problem with the fact that the revelations he just shared with us all are about to get the Hollywood treatment. If things go really bad they might even get the Michael Bay treatment. We've already had the "DC 9/11" business and then there was that "Homeland Security" movie on Sunday. September 11, and everything that sprung from it, is already being turned into entertainment. I find it disturbing and disheartening.

[MSgt213]

14. Well I can understand your point. However, we might get lucky and

Oliver Stone or Michael Moore may direct.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Please no...

Not Oliver Stone. And I don't say that to take away from his talent as a director. Stone is the butt of every conspiracy joke that comes across the pike, and his directing such a movie would just fit into that stereotype. That, imo, would lessen the credibility of the message.

[Touchdown]

23. I'd prefer Ridley Scott.

... of Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien, Thelma & Louise fame. He'd give it a decent treatment.

[BGrier]

25. Not Oliver Stone For This Book

But Oliver Stone has it in him to make a powerful film about 9-11. The reason he's the butt of conspiracy jokes is because he's apparently the only one with the guts to take some of these issues on. That, and he's quite talented. He's accused of hitting people over the head to make his point but after seeing Bush give a dismal press conference and then hearing people praise his performance, you begin to think someone needs to start hitting people over the head.

I don't think a great film about 9-11 will be made for quite some time.

[rman]

36. a movie van be both entertaining and informative

nothing wrong with that.

[TeeYiYi]

40. I agree and . . .

. . . I'm not sure of the psychology behind 'why' I'm bothered by the movie. I felt the same way after they found Elizabeth Smart. The quick book was questionable but the movie was clear exploitation. These two cases aren't the same, I realize. I just wonder why the Hollywood treatment bugs me so much. Maybe because we all view Hollywood and its products as fantasy. Rare is the movie that was better than the book. The movie always seems to diminish the value of the content of the book. IMO.

Let me make it clear that I don't have any problem with Clark's book. I do wonder about the movie but I'm not surprised. Regardless, as with Elizabeth Smart, the movie would be made with or without his consent. I guess it's best that he is in on it.

TYY

[mikey_1962]

47. I don't care if he makes a buck either, that is Capitalism but if you wrap

yourself in altruism... get ready to defend your position

[Nlighten1]

6. Who gives a crap?

It only lessens his credibility among the zombies in America.

[joycep]

7. I think it's great

The more people who find out about what actually happened--the better it will be in this country. Some people just don't read books or have access to real news.

[Redbear]

17. Exactly.

Many people know what they do about Watergate from the docudramas, SNL , and All the President's Men.

[heidiho]

8. Forrest Gump to play George Bush

but who can play Cheney?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Ian McDiarmid, aka Senator Palpatine, aka Darth Sidious, aka...

...THE EMPEROR! MUAHAHAHAHA!

[BlueEyedSon]

9. Let him make some money, the Bushies ruined his career....

[RoyGBiv]

11. I had the same thought...

But, I think, possibly, in the long-term it may turn out for the best, much as xultar said. I know people who were my age during the Watergate controversy who wouldn't have ever known much about it had it not been for All the President's Men.

The American public has an incredibly short attention span even when they do bother to take note of the daily news, which is fairly uncommon in and of itself. But, make a movie out of it, and suddenly it's on everyone's lips.

How this works out will depend on a lot of things, high among them how well the movie is produced and when it is released.

[skypilot]

15. Especially when it is released.

No chance of it being released before the election I would think.

[Loonman]

19. Hollyweird will make a movie about anything

I don't see how a movie like this would help the cause.

[skypilot]

20. I don't either, unless...

...it were handled by someone like Errol Morris or some other documentary filmmaker. I don't think that's what's going to happen though.

[Blue_Roses]

30. Actually, I liked his book so much

that while reading it, I thought,"wow this WOULD make a good movie." I like the Tom Clancy, John Grisham kind of suspense and this book read like that--very intriguing and interesting.

[skypilot]

32. "...this WOULD make a good movie."

That's exactly why I had trouble reading it. It read too much like a movie treatment to me. And the conversations that he related sounded too much like dialogue. I really wasn't getting into the book at all. When I heard that he'd sold the movie rights I returned it. I'm not accusing him of lying. I just think that the book was either very heavily vetted by the White House and came out sounding fictitious or he wrote it with an eye for a Hollywood deal. Anyway, I've got TONS of other anti-Bush and anti-Right books to read. I'm getting a little backed up and Clarke's book was the easiest one to part with. Surprisingly.

[Bridget Burke]

35. You mean it wasn't dull?

How sad.

[skypilot]

39. "You mean it wasn't dull?" ????

I don't understand what you mean.

[Blue_Roses]

46. Some people do have more exciting lives

than others. I know one who's life reads like a truely exciting novel.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. The more this information stays in front of the public, regardless...

...of the format, the better off we are.

[TeeYiYi]

41. Good point . . .

. . . and there are plenty of people who don't read books. (Believe it or not.)

In the marketing world it is a fact that the television is the best way to target your market. Movies probably run a close second. Think of the news reels they used to run in the theaters before television.

TYY

[sampsonblk]

42. Depends on the Movie and the timing

If it is a REAL movie and if it comes out before the election, that's great. If its a sham or if it will come out in theaters in a few years, then for this election all it does is give the crooks and liars more ammo.

[skypilot]

43. I agree.

And with the way this administration gets its hands into everything, I see lots and lots of delays and production problems for this movie. In the meantime, the Republicans will simply point to the movie deal itself (without the benefit of an actual movie) as a reason to question Clarke's motives and sincerity.

[samsingh]

44. it exposes bush's lies to more people

so i like it.

it also rewards Clarke for his bravery in coming forward.

shrub's friends are making money hand over fist through what appear to be questionable activities all over the place.