... My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this--I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events--and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.
It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it...
Yeah, well you know how it is, Mr. Nowrasteh. Synthetic outrage is one of those narcissistic pleasures you just can't expect the "Clintonistas" to pass up.
The funniest of them was Sandy Berger. First of all, why does anybody even listen to him? The man should be in jail. Secondly, if he's so concerned that we get the story right, it's a real good idea to not go around stealing and then destroying records from the National Archives.
As for the film, if you didn't see it, you missed something very good. The Clinton admin didn't look very impressive. That's be cause they WEREN'T. W's admin also dropped the ball. The film showed that too. The difference is, W has been getting his share of the blame all along. Until now Clinton's sorry record hasn't recieved nearly as much scrutiny.