Docu-fiction

I had to go back over it again, "Bush's War", & double check some numbers on the surge, so that I didn't make this claim out of turn.

It's no coincidence that they ended that series with the replacement of Rumsfeld. They made one passing reference to the surge, "So far the surge has met with some success, as policy makers hold their breath." But that was it, even though the surge is several months old, and details about its success or lack thereof are readily available ... I mean, isn't the surge part of Bush's war too? As much as anything else I would say. They could have just as easily added a segment 12 to part 2, entitled "Things Are Getting Good, Fast", but they didn't see fit to do that. Like I said, wearing out my hose to the point of exhaustion.

Let me ask you something - if the violence in country had increased by 70%, rather then DECREASE by that margin, as it has, do you think PBS would have found it within their artistic license to include that number? Or, if bodies sent to the central Baghdad morgue increased fifteen fold, rather then going from an average of 150 per week down to 10 ... do you think THAT number would have made it in to the report? It's laughable.

And lets add to that the Abu Graihb segment. Did you recognize parts of it? It was the EXACT same footage and interviews of columnists etc, that they used for GTMO. Not similar, not close - the EXACT same footage that as viewers we were lead to believe was commentary on the GTMO circumstances and details in earlier segments. They were replayed as if these same comments and interviews were referring to Abu Graib detention policies and procedures. Look at it yourself! Compare the GTMO rules of interrogation laid down and commented on by journalists (namely the guy with the beard) in Part 1, segment 11 entitled "Tough New Interrogation Techniques", and then compare it to Part 2, segment 6 entitled "Things Are Getting Bad, Fast." They use the exact pictures of a document ("taking advantage of phobias like a fear of dogs", etc )of what we were lead to believe in part 1, segment 11 to be the rules on GTMO in that part 2, segment 6 footage. And what's worse, the interview of a journalist from the GTMO segment, in which we assume as the viewer was his commentary on GTMO, is replayed as if he was commenting on Abu Graihb. Shameless!

We are truly entering Micheal Moore territory here. This thing, while interesting in its accurate portrayal of the administrations internal debate over light or heavy footprints, is for the most part an exercise in editorial license the likes of which isn't fit to be called "documentary."

And these flaws, of which there are many, compels me to call into question the entire thing. How could it not? Testimony from legislatures privy to sensitive Intel hearings from only one political party. Point blank statements like "Bush doesn't like to fire people" or "The Vice President was furious", describing him reading alone no less! It had a clear agenda - acquit Colin Powell and all of the legislatures (who now oppose the war) whom voted for the action as if they had been pawns in some huge rouse. And to boot, I found it shockingly revealing that the FLA (D) Senator, Graham I think, admitted that the vote for or against WAR affected Democrats because they had a tough election coming up. Not that it was a matter of conscience, data, Intel, or anything of the sort .. NO, his primary concern and the concern of his party was that November was 2 months away and how best would they come off in those midterm elections.

I just can't take this thing seriously anymore. Like I said, its useful for the footprint debate, but other then that it's heavy on the insight of journalists and reporters and light on military historians or principle actors ... and at one point completely dishonest as to an interviewees testimony and footage of an actual report being used for two different facilities completely. Really, if you found these type of flaws in FOX production narrated by Hannitty, would you spend this much time on it, quoting it, referencing it? Would you allow me to get away with the same?

I find it to be as faulty in its portrayals as they claim was the CIA in the lead up to war .... America's War by the way Frontline producers ... AMERICA'S WAR.