How dare you use the killing of Bin Laden to point out that Bin Laden was killed? DON’T YOU KNOW IT MAKES OBAMA LOOK GOOD??1!
In their first interviews about the secrecy-shrouded project, Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal — who each claimed Oscars for 2009′s Iraq-war drama The Hurt Locker — insist their film is a study of the unsung heroes who worked behind the scenes to take down bin Laden, not a celebration of Pres. Barack Obama’s decision to authorize the strike that killed him, in May 2011. ”There’s no political agenda in the film. Full stop. Period,” says Boal, a veteran war correspondent. ”A lot of people are going to be surprised when they see the film. For example, the president is not depicted in the movie.”
Although Sony decided last fall to move the film’s debut from October to December, well after the election, the project continues to draw fire. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and the right-wing watchdog group Judicial Watch have questioned whether the filmmakers received access to classified documents while researching their story.
Yes. Bin Laden being dead makes Obama look good. Because using whatever political metric you like, before Obama was president Bin Laden was alive, and now, while Obama is still president, Bin Laden is no longer alive. This is a clear example of liberal bias in media.
And exactly how much of this sensitive information did the filmmakers actually get?
The records, obtained through the Judicial Watch suit, showed that even as top Pentagon officials were complaining that too much information was being disclosed about the raid that killed bin Laden, a senior DoD official promised the filmmakers a Navy SEAL team contact who could offers details about the raid.
Boal called the offer “dynamite,” but the Pentagon said later that the promised liaison effort never took place.
CIA documents showed that Boal was given a tour of a mock-up used to plan the raid on the compound in Pakistan, but a CIA spokeswoman said in an internal e-mail that the agency’s contacts with the filmmakers should be kept “a bit quiet” due to “sensitivities” about the selective nature of such access.
They gave the guy a tour of a model? And a source promised to put them in touch with another source, but that never materialized? This is from Politico, and that’s the worst they could come up with. Okay.
And the CIA was worried wingnuts would have hysterics about nothing. I can’t imagine why.