Sidney Blumenthal, with his usual elegant prose, has a piece on Salon laying out the White House fears that Colin Powell will come out of hiding in time to deny them the impact of Petraeus' september report.
Although the piece focuses in main on Powell, the fuel for the fire of fear comes from Charles Ferguson's excellent documentary No End in Sight
Blumenthal says:
The release of a documentary on the administration's failures in Iraq, "No End in Sight," directed by Charles Ferguson, has the White House spooked. Bush's aides are not worried because the film is brilliantly shot and edited, or because it is compelling, but because of what -- or whose appearance -- it might augur to upset their September rollout.
In particular, Ferguson snagged Richard Armitage, Powell's right hand man.
This confirms my suspicions: this movie, which tells of the Iraq occupation fiasco from the insider's perspective, has the potential to push people off the fence, and, in my view, towards veto proof majorities in congress, and the White House wants to squash it. Is that why he is virtually blacked out from the TV and most major radio outlets?
According to Blumenthal, the concern from the White House about No End In Sight is that
...Armitage's debut in particular has the White House fuming and fretting that it somehow signals Powell's emergence as a full-throated critic in the middle of the September P.R. offensive. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, according to sources close to him, has voiced anger and concern about whether Powell will step forward and what he might say, and other presidential aides are wondering how to cope with that nightmarish possibility.
Remember: Powell was the man that gave them cover with his lamentable performance at the UN. Many people skeptical about the war fell for this demonstrably false speech.
Yet Powell retains sufficient credibility that his word on the surge at the time of Petraeus' report could be a killer.
So what of ``No End in Sight''? It is a terrific movie. There of course has been concern voiced here and elsewhere about the frame of the film (incompetence smashed our chances in Iraq). But the movie makes no pretense that the occupation would have succeeded without such gross mismanagement and malfeasance--but rather that the certainty of its failure was sealed with it. The movie tells the story of this incompetence with a relentless energy. The most powerful portion in my opinion is a series of exchanges between Lt. Col. Paul Hughes, who was present in Iraq and in charge of reforming the Iraqi army, and Walter Slocombe, former undersecretary of defense, who without ever setting foot in Baghdad ordered the dismantlement of said army. The exchange is virtual, mediated by Ferguson himself. Hughes speaks with great pain about the officers he lined up ready to move towards stabilization, which Slocombe dismisses with a wave of the hand. You can hear some of this in this online audio from Talk of the Nation.
The movie has garnered rave reviews from the NY TImes, Washington Post, Time, the New Yorker, Newsweek, and Entertainment Weekly among others (including the LA Weekly, Village Voice, and Associated Press). Perhaps most significantly, from the home of John Wayne International Airport and the heart of Reagan country, the Orange County Register gave a rave review. Ferguson has appeared for Q&A at the Washington Post and Crooks and Liars. (Update: on further inspection, the OC Register review is a reprint of the NY Times review...still, getting favorable press in the OC is not a bad thing!).
Why belabor the accolades and appearances by Ferguson? Because so far he is virtually blacked out of the major TV and radio markets (barring the Talk of the Nation appearance mentioned above, a four month old appearance on NOW, an appearance tomorrow on the Tavis Smiley show). He was scheduled for July 31 on Charlie Rose and bumped, apparently indefinitely. He received a brief video clip on CNN Situation Room in late July. (You might take the time to write Mr. Rose [charlierose@pbs.org], as I did, and ask why he bumped the interview...).
Now contrast this with the glowing coverage that those famed war critics Michael O'Hanlan and Kenneth Pollack got--they were freaking everywhere. Ferguson is no DFH. He is a centrist Brookings and Council on Foreign Relations member, as well as an entrepeneur and writer of books about high tech policy issues. This credibility, along with his insistence on using insiders to skewer the war effort, makes him a very tough person to marginalize (though surely the Bush administration is trying to find a way to do so as I write). He has made what looks like an Oscar caliber documentary on his first stab at filmmaking!
This alone is a fascinating story. Why are Wolf, Keith, Chris, Katie, etc eschewing his presence on their shows?
My point in all this is the following: the film has the White House scared. The evidence from the virtual lack of coverage on TV news is that someone is working behind the scenes to keep this thing from being widely seen. The movie points to the potential appearance of Colin Powell to help kill the surge.
[Is it at least part of what was behind the very curious executive order of July 18 (which could be used to threaten the networks, for example)?]
This movie can change minds and votes. Whatever your worries about the frame, this can be a tool to help pry our way out of this horrific war. I urge you to see it, encourage others to see it, and use it in your activism. If it has the white house scared, there is a reason-it is effective.