Stolen Honor Debunking?

In my ongoing and, frankly, enervating argument with my Fundy Repug Uncle, he now wants me to check out the anti-Kerry movie, Stolen Honor.    I know that its director, Carlton Sherwood, is, as John Gorenfeld reported is a Moonie shill.  What else is wrong?

I did a little research myself quickly: Ronald Webb, quoted on the home page of Stolen Honor is not politically neutral.  He's praised Nixon and Kissinger, and served as an assistant secretary of the FAA during the first Bush administration.  Lexis-Nexis gives me nothing on him, but maybe I don't know how to search properly.

As for the other POWsquoted from, I haven't been able to find out much about Ralph Gaither (there's a photo of him with Reagan, New York Times, January 29, 1983, pertaining to POW issues).  Robinson Risner's already well-known as a POW, and there's some dubious but not damning info available about him on Lexis-Nexis: he was close friends with Ross Perot (July 9, 1992, Atlanta Constitution); named as a alternate delegate to the UN by Reagan in 1985; worked on Nancy Reagan's anti-drug campaign; chairman of the federally funded Texas War on Drugs during the first Bush admin.  James Warner, another ex-POW quoted by Stolen Honor is former Reagan White House domestic-policy adviser, 1985-88.  As of April 2003, Warner is also Assistant General Counsel of the NRA.

Connections to the Republicans for the latest bunch of anti-Kerry veterans?  Looks like it.  Someone with better skills at journalism than I have will have to connect more dots.

•  Just Offer to

  Watch it with him, if he'll watch Fahrenheit with you.

  by Slade on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 07:01:32 PM PDT

  •  Not a bad suggestion

    But he lives in MN and I live in NY.  Here's what he's already said about Moore:

    Moore is a profiteer.  We writers have a genre called "faction," which dramatizes non-fiction by stretching and manipulating facts.  I have not seen his movie, and have no interest in seeing it.  Neither have I read "Unfit for Command," and it is unlikely that I will. . . .Have you read "Unfit for Command"?  I should think you would not waste your time or money on it.

    So, he's refused to see it.  And he's unwilling to give me any particulars about what he thinks is wrong with it, except that it stretches and manipulates facts.  I might even give him that point, because, well, the facts, even unvarnished or unstretched, look pretty bad.  The combination of Bush's 7 minutes and the August 6 2001 PDB are pretty wicked, Moore or no Moore.

    My main point with this diary is to start the left-wing noise machine on the ties between these ex-Pows and the GOP that will make them as lacking credibility as the SBVT.  I think I have a nice start, but real journalists should take it further.

    by Karl the Idiot on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 07:09:10 PM PDT

    •  Well, hey

      At least he's not telling you what's in it without having bothered to watch it. Unlike many of the so-called reviewers in the SCLM.

      I'm not sure I'd agree with your uncle about "faction"--either as a genre or as a descriptor for what Moore does. I think "Documentoganda" is probably a better word. Or "Propagandumentary."

      by musing85 on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 07:13:04 PM PDT

•  More ties

  I forgot about opensecrets.org.  Quick search on it reveals that, yes, James Warner is a Republican, clearly.  I'm positive this is the same person as the ex-POW, as he's associated with the NRA.  Gave $$ to McCain in 99, W. Bush in 2000, and Roscoe Bartlett in February this year.

   

  by Karl the Idiot on Sun Aug 29, 2004 at 07:17:33 PM PDT