"Mr. Trump would like all Americans to know the truth about what happened at Benghazi... The theater is paid for. The tickets are paid for. You just have to RSVP."
By the way, Ted Cruz mentioned the movie by name in the beginning of his closing statement at last night's debate. He said: "'13 Hours' — tomorrow morning, a new movie will debut about the incredible bravery of the men fighting for their lives in Benghazi and the politicians that abandoned them."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
56 comments:
What about popcorn, is that included? Iowa is in the heart of the corn belt. He better have thought to include popcorn!
Ted may have mentioned the movie last night, but now Trump owns the message.
Amen, PB.
While JEB! is wasting his money on idiotic billboards, Trump probably spent less money hiring the theater and will get 100X the exposure nationwide and 500X the goodwill.
Genius move. This example of his smarts is why he is doubling Cruz' poll numbers.
John Henry
All of the Repub candidates should be pimpin that flick.
I think that the runout of the movie is going to be interesting. Both Cruz and Trump are making it noticeable. I think that it is going to be successful for two reasons. One is the politics - a lot of people on the right are going to go to it just to slap Hillary and Obama in the face. But, I think that it will also be popular with the young male crowd who love this sort of shoot-em-up type movie. Esp. one like this with real life heroic characters, and cowardly higher ups. So, Hillary is going after the young female voters, based on nothing more than both having vaginas, and their male counterparts are being courted by the Republicans here, and, I think much more effectively. This is going to be a very popular movie, and most of those going are going to vote against one of the two people telling the military to stand down that night and let our people in Benghazi die. (I don't know if we will ever find out if Hillary had any input whatsoever that night, or just let her boss and his people do the deciding, but we do know that she didn't openly push for intervention, nor did she make any contemporaneous comments that didn't support his actions, and she did actively participate in the coverup).
From Baghdad to Benghazi to Damascus, abandonment is the ruling theme of this administration, which has been overshadowed only by anti-native policies.
The Orwellian narrative that is established is that Clinton and Obama are blameless here.
Reading comments at NYT or Slate etc-It's all been gone into enough, its only hate on obama and clinton.
I hope this movie can change that narrative.
Allowing Americans to fight and die, without help is shameful, disgusting. I would call it the act of a traitor.
But the narrative is more important than American lives.
Trump is the only one who is calling bullshit on obama and clinton. And people are beginning to notice how right he is.
Do the producers of 13 hours have to report it as a campaign contribution?
I have long predicted that Hillary! would never drop out absent a compelling medical condition.
First the movie, now this. It is bound to aggravate her blood pressure. Is another stroke far behind?
Anyone want to start a Hillary! pool?
John Henry
Trump is good at this campaigning stuff.
"Do the producers of 13 hours have to report it as a campaign contribution?"
It's not a campaign contribution. It's the movie-makers' own free speech. This is what the Citizens United case was about. It's a matter of First Amendment law.
Do you think the New York Times is making campaign contributions to the Democratic Party candidates every day of the year?
Trump is spending his own money, which he has a First Amendment right to do. He's spending it on showing the movie.
The vector of money isn't from film company to Trump. It's from Trump to the film company.
That the movie company made a product that he found it useful to buy is no more relevant than that a suit-making company made a suit he decided to buy to wear to the next rally.
Cruz packs for information into his allotted speaking time than any of the others. Go replay his closing statement, its beautiful.
Ugh! Now, I'm having visions of a crazy world in which candidates are required to campaign naked.
This is going to be a very popular movie, and most of those going are going to vote against one of the two people telling the military to stand down that night and let our people in Benghazi die.
Obama and Hillary decided to let them die. Why? My guess is that a silly, rigid “small footprint” policy regarding US presence in the ME is to blame. To stand by while Americans die needlessly is unforgivable.
Some politicians cannot deal with reality. Other politicians deal with it deftly most of the time. But there’s only one candidate we’ve seen who has an unique ability to change reality and that is Trump. He’s created a new reality: Trumpality
After every debate there’s always folks who emphatically declare that Trump lost the debate. Yet immediately after every debate Trump’s poll numbers go up. Trumpality.
Hooah, Sargent Trump.
He could play a double header by adding Brad Pitt's 2014 performance of men in battle in the realty pic Fury.
Warning: Fury is not suitable for Professor Althouse to watch.
what a bang for his buck.
Here is a marketing/political idea - show this movie and Blackhawk Down as a package deal. In that one, the Administration of Hillary's husband had (if I remember correctly) removed the heavy armor for political reasons, very similar to what is likely part of what happened on 9/11/12. And, for that, American soldiers died.
I thought Cruz was very fortunate to work those talking points about the movie into the debate. I also thought he probably trumped other candidates who may have had similar talking points but he got them in first.
Now Trump has trumped Cruz. Cruz gets a B+ for the debate mention but this day after stuff with Trump is A+.
Hillary and Obama stood by while people were slaughtered in Benghazi because they lacked the values, courage, and instincts requisite to make the right decision, in a timely manner. Reagan had all three of these attributes in spades. The jihadis would have wished they had never attacked us.
Ann Althouse said...
It's not a campaign contribution.
I suspect John was being sarcastic. It should be noted that if Hillary! has the chance to replace one of the 5 centrist Justices then Citizens United would get overturned and a movie such as this ( i.e. any movie that makes Hillary! look bad ) would not be constitutionally protected speech.
Do you think the New York Times is making campaign contributions to the Democratic Party candidates every day of the year?
Why yes, now that you mention it.
Anyone want to start a Hillary! pool?
I expect her to pull a Torricelli in March and be replaced by Biden or Warren.
Yes Ann my comment about campaign contributions was in jest.
I suspect that the producers were just making a movie. It hurts hillary but I doubt that is the main reason for making it.
#Pray4Benghazi
Bruce Hayden said...
Here is a marketing/political idea - show this movie and Blackhawk Down as a package deal. In that one, the Administration of Hillary's husband had (if I remember correctly) removed the heavy armor for political reasons, very similar to what is likely part of what happened on 9/11/12. And, for that, American soldiers died.
1/15/16, 10:13 AM"
Painfully true. Whenever the Left starts yammering about chickenhawks the only rejoinder needed is who in their right mind would risk dying or being severely disabled under the command of a Democrat Commander in Chief or with a Congress under the control of the Democratic party?
Of all the terror attacks on embassies around the world under Reagan to Obama, Benghazi is the attack that matters. The only attack I care about.
People are willing to overlook mistakes, they aren't so forgiving when it comes to lies.
Imagine if Beirut happened under Obama.
#Pray241Beirut
Ann Althouse said...It's not a campaign contribution. It's the movie-makers' own free speech. This is what the Citizens United case was about. It's a matter of First Amendment law.
...for now...by a 5-4 vote...in a Supreme Court opinion that's been denounced and attacked by name regularly by the Media and Democrat politicians...
Ann Althouse said...
"Do the producers of 13 hours have to report it as a campaign contribution?"
It's not a campaign contribution. It's the movie-makers' own free speech. This is what the Citizens United case was about.
Althouse, and Tank, and 8 other people know this.
"Althouse, and Tank, and 8 other people know this."
Check out the big brain on Tank.
garage mahal said...
Imagine if Beirut happened under Obama.
#Pray241Beirut
1/15/16, 11:28 AM"
Reagan didn't sit on his ass while the attack was ongoing and possibly could have been stopped and our people's lives possibly saved. Obama did. That's the difference. You really are a tool, a shill and an asshole.
Tell us the actions our President took that night, garage.
Original Mike said...
"Althouse, and Tank, and 8 other people know this."
Check out the big brain on Tank.
1/15/16, 11:52 AM"
In this instance you would be right.
That Obama dude just can't catch a break. It's just so unfair that people judge him harshly simply for lying about the deaths of US personnel for his own political gain.
@cubanbob: I think a hell of a lot more then 10 people know this.
Original Mike said...
Tell us the actions our President took that night, garage.
1/15/16, 11:58 AM"
Give Carter credit at least he tried a rescue and separately with the help of the Canadians he did manage to get some of our people out.
When your Administration makes Carter's look good in comparison you have managed to do the near impossible. Heck of a job Barry.
Tank, you Althouse and 8 others is a bit on the low side but you are correct that many people like garage are hilariously ignorant of the particulars of that ruling and its implications.
Yea cubanbob. Fir sure.
"The commission's report found senior military officials responsible for security lapses and blamed the military chain of command for the disaster. It suggested that there might have been many fewer deaths if the barracks guards had carried loaded weapons and a barrier more substantial than the barbed wire the bomber drove overseas"
Difference was Democrats didn't jack off over their corpses on a daily basis. Sick fuckers.
Drago,
All the words after "garage (is) hilariously ignorant" were superfluous.
Style points lost: five.
... barrier more substantial than the barbed wire the bomber drove overseas"
WHAT!?
Wow. Barriers are important for physical security, as are armed personnel.
Quite an admission, Garage.
So why did Hillary leave the Benghazi consulate so woefully unprotected, despite many emails from the Ambassador and his staff asking for help?
Let's unpack this whole "barrier" thing.
Hillary told us publicly the compound was "very heavily fortified." Why was at least one side of the compound protected only by a chain link fence and a hedge? And where was the security staff?
Just think! If Hillary had prevailed in Citizens United, they could be scrambling lawyers to block the release of "13 Hours" right now!
HD says: "...for now...by a 5-4 vote...in a Supreme Court opinion that's been denounced and attacked by name regularly by the Media and Democrat politicians..."
Hmm. "Media and Democrat politicians". You almost repeat yourself.
Bottom line, it was a military overthrow of a foreign country, and these things never go smoothly.
Obama is right in that we have no need to overthrow the Syrian government, just as we have no need to overthrow the Mexican or Canadian governments.
These things kill people. It's a given.
Let the Saudi's and the Iranians duke it out, I could care less.
"Althouse, and Tank, and 8 other people know this."
I'm trying to figure out which Supreme Court justice doesn't know this.
So Fury must be involved here since it is definitely about Tank.
Birkel: "Drago, All the words after "garage (is) hilariously ignorant" were superfluous.
Style points lost: five."
That is unfortunate.
I shall endeavor to not only make up that "deficit instance" but also to extend the surplus generally. (I have to believe I am in net surplus territory)
Of course, an alternative course would be to "play it safe" and not engage, but that strategy has it's own risks and opportunity costs.
coupe: "Obama is right in that we have no need to overthrow the Syrian government,..."
It's true that not overthrowing the Syrian government has been one of the many, many, US policy positions offered up by obambi as regards Syria.
It seems as if each week that goes by the very policies that obambi and Kerry say we do not possess become the defacto US policies ad conventional wisdom that "gee whiz, it was always intended to be this way".
The events of the last 48 hours of obambi/Kerry telling us first that the Iranians "rescued" our naval vessels and personnel which then morphed to a misunderstanding which then morphed to an inappropriate US excursion into Iranian waters and taking our sailors at gunpoint then, in the most magically liberal/lefty/progressive way evah!, into "see how great our relationship with the Iranians is now? They released our military personnel quickly!!!".
And that, ladies and gentleman, was actually trumpeted as a sign of the obambi admin success by the admins main stream media stenographers.
You simply cannot make this stuff up.
Garage
The obvious devastating rejoinder to your absurd comments about Reagan is that Beirut was a car bombing over -in an instant- while the Benghazi scenario went on for 13 hours, plenty of time to mount an overwhelming military response.
@ grackle : I think your analysis is correct that Obama and Hillary were only concerned with the political aspects of the attack in Benghazi. Since they and, I imagine, most of their advisors have no military experience they do not have the ingrained reaction that "someone's in trouble we need to help, we'll worry about the consequences later".
Bu bu but what about Beirut?!
@Gahrie: I'm glad to see your support for my prediction that Hillary! will withdraw and be replaced as the Democrats' nominee, but I don't see how the beneficiary could be anyone but Biden, and certainly not Warren. There's no reason that Obama would use his Justice Department to replace one female candidate with another. The only replacement that would serve Obama's interests would be Biden.
(It's conceivable that Sanders could actually upset Hillary! in the primaries/caucuses and earn the nomination, but I can't see his post-NH trajectory going there. But I could be wrong.)
The problem with throwing the nomination to Biden if Herself bails is that the Bernie Sanders crowd would go livid. A lot of people just seem to assume that they would follow orders and vote for Biden, etc. But, if they were that much into following orders (like good little Democrats), they would be supporting Hillary, instead of Sanders. Trump is already pulling a lot of Democrats, and this would just get him more. Or, they could stay at home. In either case (or, more likely, a combination of the two of them), this could give the Republicans, and, esp. Trump, in the high forties in terms of states carried in the election, probably a better Republican outcome than anytime after Reagan left office.
The other thing about Biden is that he is really a bad campaigner. He is dingy as all heck, sometimes seeming to just say what is in his stream of consciousness. And, contrary to Trump, Biden is usually wrong when he says outrageous things. Plus, as essentially running for Obama's third term, he would be tied to all of the Administration's failures, ranging from going into the 8th year of the Obama Recession, through continuing problems with ObamaCare, to the world blowing up around us. All without Obama's skin color and charisma. All that against him, and he still doesn't have a uterus like Hillary likely still does.
Post a Comment