Disney Corp. as a propaganda arm of the Bush Administration

For the last few days, I've been thinking that I really have to blog on the upcoming "docudrama" by a conservative activist, allegedly based on the 9/11 Commission Report, to be broadcast on ABC television, that places the blame for the attacks solely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton. But every time I sit down to do it, I get so angry that I go into a kind of paralysis and I just sit here spluttering helplessly.

So I'm going to cop out on this one, and let the King of all Media Activism, John Aravosis, do the heavy lifting here, here, here, and here.

And Jennifer Nix tells of trying to be recognized as a member of the press even though she isn't a right-wing blogger here and here.

And Digby reminds us to "consider the source(es)."

It's ironic that ABC, the network owned by a company that has been the target of boycotts by Christofascist zombies disturbed over their gay policies, and which pulled the plug on the Mel Gibson-helmed Holocaust film, is not just broadcasting, but promoting, wingnut propaganda about 9/11 in an attempt to rescue George W. Bush's failed presidency and disastrous Iraq war. Why would ABC pull the plug on Mel Gibson and let this project go ahead? Perhaps it has more to do with what Sam Seder revealed last night, which is a Wall Street Journal Washington Wire blog entry from June 1, 2006:

Lobbyists for Walt Disney Co. seek to avoid fallout from a controversial story by its ABC News unit stating that House Speaker Hastert is under Justice Department investigation.

Disney and other movie studios are seeking Republican support for repealing a provision in last month’s tax bill that costs the industry $181 million over a decade. The provision narrowed the benefits of a manufacturing tax break to companies with wage earners; since movie stars work as independent contractors, Hollywood would lose much of the benefit.

Industry lobbyists were once confident that they could repeal the provision as part of a follow up tax bill planned for June. But ABC’s Hastert story has made the parent company’s lobbying task more difficult

This isn't the first time that a drama based on the events of 9/11 sought to burnish the image of a man who, when presented with the now-infamous August 6 PDB, snapped at the CIA analysts who brought it to him, "All right, you’ve covered your ass." This isn't the first time that a drama based on the events on 9/11 sought to burnish the image of a man who sat in a classroom for seven minutes after the second plane hit the World Trade Center and then spent the day flying around the country. Instead, the Showtime docudrama DC 9/11: Time of Crisis portrayed instead a president who had a "Come and get me, coppers!" moment.

If the morons who still believe and trust this president feel a deep-seated need to believe in and trust and love the daddy figure who beats them and then tells them it's for their own good want to watch this swill because it helps repair the cracks that appear in their worldview when reality intrudes, it's their business. And I'm wondering if all the attention we are paying to this piece of swill is just doing ABC's bidding, providing it with free publicity. The problem is that Americans have become so incurious that many can no longer tell the difference between fiction and reality. When 65% of Republican and even almost a third of Democrats still believe that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, something is very, very wrong with the way Americans are processing information.

But amidst all the hoopla surrounding the fifth anniversary of the attacks, with televised repeats of every program that dealt even tangentially with the attacks running in a seemingly endless loop, one has to wonder what it must be like to have lost your husband, or your brother, or your father, or your son on that day and have to sit by while your president's supporters use the corpse of your loved one as a political tool.

Jill McGovern of Wyckoff, NJ, a mother of two daughters who lost her husband in the World Trade Center, doesn't have to wonder, because she's living it:

Jill wants people to remember Sept. 11. She appreciates the memorial services and candlelight vigils and cannot thank people enough for the generosity they have shown toward her family.

But she also hates the heightened coverage of the attacks this time of year. She dreads turning on her television. She has no need to relive Scott's death through the umpteenth replay of the plane slamming into his building or the tower collapsing in a horrendous implosion of dust and debris.

"When it starts to be those days leading up to the [anniversary], I feel like it's happening all over again," Jill said. "I feel like Scott's going to die all over again, and I can't stop it."

Nor does Jill want to see commercials for Hollywood and made-for-television movies related to Sept. 11.

"It's absolutely capitalizing on the event and the anniversary," she said. "I don't think it's respectful to the families."

No, it isn't. But after all, what are the feelings of a young widow from Jersey and her daughters, who were four and two years old when their father died in the attacks, compared to the need to put lipstick on this pig of a president?