CBS MOVIE 'THE REAGANS' DRAWS CRITICISM

By Steve Gorman
Tuesday, October 21, 2003

Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
dramatized portrait of the former president that has
drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
airs.

The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
what supporters regard as his key achievements.

Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are
concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James
Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand,
while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are
self-described liberals.
[...]
Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with
considerable sway over White House policies, even setting
her husband's schedule according to the advice of
astrologers.

CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized
biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books
written by his supporters. . . .
 [...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031022/tv_nm/leisure_reagan_dc_1

The Clintons also consulted astrologers.

Jai Maharaj
Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
Creator of newsgroups alt.jyotish, alt.language.hindi, alt.religion.hindu
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Panchaang for 1 Kartik 5104, Sunday, October 26, 2003:

Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jeevan Ritau
Tula Mase Shukl Pakshe Bhanu Vasara Yuktayam
Vaishakh Nakshatr Ayushman-Saubhagya Yog
Balav-Kaulav Karan Dvitiya Yam Tithau

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.

This is Hilarious.

Isn't it funny how the same people who are outraged by this are also
the same people who say how it's OK for Ted Nugent to use the n*****
word just b/c P. Diddy and Chris Rock do? And aren't these also the
same people who are defending that loser Rush Limbaugh saying how his
"political agendas" are "harmless"?

Sorry. But if the MLB Hall of Fame(which, of course, is headed by a
former Reagan aide) cancelled the 15th anniversary of "Bull Durham"
for the SILLY reason that Sarandon/Robbins just happened to have
anti-war views, then 'ole Ronnie and Rush are fair game!

Identifing conservatives who happen to be cretins is not a logically
valid defense of liberal-cretin CBS' reprehensible smear-job.

--

Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce

Rebublican don't use logic. Some call it by other names such as
"polically correctness". In my view Republicans are mean-sprited
politicians when it comes to argument. Most of the time, republicans
succeed because Democrates are less aggressive and are kind of scared
of something (L word??). President Reagan was a disatrous president in
US history but Republicans painted him as a great president. Reagan
fooled the American people successfully and that seems to me his
greatest achievement.

> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message

Perhaps that ought to be considered an achievement of the people, instead.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

I'm sure you have an enormous list of all the wrong reasons why.

There are 247 that came home in body
bags from Beirut.

It's part of their overall superiority complex--"Well, it's okay for
us to play dirty pool when it comes to debate, but how dare you give
us a taste of our own medicine."

Because Republicans, having realized that they can't shove their
policies through in a fair way because the middle ground (And
progress. And history) are against them, choose to play dirty and
get personal, and that catches Democrats unawares. As well, it is a
prime example of the "worst being filled with passionate intensity."
These people honestly believe they are in a holy moral cause and
must get rid of any philosphies or people who don't think like
them; whereas the vast majority of people are either just living
their lives or trying to survive.

Now, if you were a rich person or wanted to be one, he was a
terrific president. And since those are the _only_ people the GOP
think count for something . . .g!

C.'
**

Now if Virendra says "I can't remember" then I would comment
that two can play the same game.

That's two orders of magnitude lower than LBJ's body count...you can
hardly notice.

(Well that was one wrong reason why Reagon was a disasterous President;
care to try to get a couple more wrong before I give you some really
good ones?)

Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of
all Vietnam casualties -- and which would have continued unabated except for
the fact that Congress cut off funds for the war, thus forcing Nixon to accept
the peace agreement that LBJ offered before leaving office -- and which was
rejected by Nixon and Henry the war criminal.

You guys on the far right are the ones who get it wrong. You always have, you
always will.

I'm only having fun in this thread trouncing loopybrained hypocrisy.

...and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a Republican...

snip
>You guys on the far right...

Wow. Wotta a guess.

Another fuckin' shrieking dumbass straight oughta False-Dichotomy
Flatland. Lemme make another guess: Of the groups listed upstairs,
you're posting out of alt.politics.bush, where your little hamster legs
are beating the metal wheel at light speed.

>....and you're probably sitting there thinking I'm a Republican...

>Wow. Wotta a guess.

Lets see; As the the old saying goes -- If it looks like a duck, talks like a
duck, walks like a duck, its not my fault if I think its a duck. If you don't
want to be seen as a rightwing asshole -- don't act like one.

Also, your guess of where I'm posting from is wrong -- And perhaps your claim
that you're not a rightwing idiot, is related to you mixing your meds...

Excuse me? I thought we discussing Reagan.

Oh, excuse me - you are just trying to change
the subject when a rightwing icon is undefendable,
in true conservative fashion.

Well, it beats the usual diversion of "well,
what about Clinton" you guys normally indulge in....

In an attempt to allay criticism, CBS's Ed Bradley scored an exclusive
interview with the former president. While it is set to air right
before the first installment of the mini-series, I have obtained a
transcript of it.

http://www.zacheverson.com/Humor/News_satire/CBS_Reagan_Reagans_mini.htm

-----
Read www.zacheverson.com
Subscribe www.groups.yahoo.com/group/ZachEverson/
Op-ed articles, humor columns, true stories of zany exploits, and a
business dictionary.
Topics include news, sports, business, life, arts and entertainment,
sex, drugs, and rock n' roll.

Wouldn't that be a UN reason? They're the ones who didn't
want the situation 'inflamed' by armed American troops being present.

H

Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!

>in true conservative fashion....

Guess the last "conservative" I voted for, you leaking ass.

$1000 says you can't do it.

snip

Hey stoopid: I've snipped all the bullshit in between you're latest
weezil and my original retort. Take a look at that remark; notice how it
*does NOT* preclude there actually being *correct* reasons why Reagon
was a disasterous president? Yessirree, Jethro.

I just wanted to see if you actually knew any of them, or were just
another troll shilling Dems as if they amounted to a damn bit of
substantive difference when it came down to, say, approprations bills,
not a single socialist one of which you'll observe Reagan ever vetoed.

It is your fault that you don't bother to get your facts straight.

He doesn't.

It's based upon the fact that he isn't "rightwing."

Medication can treat many things, but I've never heard of any
pharmaceuticals which could counteract your "malady": deliberate
refusal to apply reason which you're displaying.

=====
EE

Latine loqui coactus sum.

Nope. It wasn't the UN who sent in the
marines, but Reagan.

>leto...@nospam.net wrote:

>snip

You need to stop mixing your meds mikie. You look like an asshole here. Now
what you snipped was this;

"Boy you must be really pissed about Nixon's body count, eh? It is ONE HALF of

Really? Try keeping up mikie. LBJ's body count -- which is where I came in
-- has nothing to do with appropriations bills, vetoed or not by raygun ronny.

Now, when and if you stop foaming at the mouth maybe you can take a deep
breath, and then visit the bathroom to let it all out in private.

>He doesn't.

Really? Explain for us why he is foaming at the mouth like a rightwing idiot;
complaining about democrats and making statements that support old raygun
ronny!

Really? What reason has I misapplied? He is here supporting raygun ronny,
and attacking democrats -- what the hell do you think is behind that!

I can't explain your fantasies.

Look here:

-- Mike 10/27/2003 http://tinyurl.com/srze

Does a foaming-at-the-mouth rightwing Reagan supporter have "some
really good" reasons "why Reagan was a disasterous President"?

This should have given you a clue:

snip

Wow. Wotta a guess.

-- Mike 10/28/2003 http://tinyurl.com/ss1x

In case you STILL don't know what he's talking about, check this out:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False+dichotomy

[snip]

I think the guy ignoring context is the one who looks like an
asshole.

You *are* an illiterate boob unable to devise original insults.

There's a difference. Conservatives are not saying it's okay or good
to use the term 'nigger'. Rather, they are arguing one has the right
to say offensive things. Conservatives are not proposing that the
Reagans be censored as politically correct liberals are trying to
actually restrict free speech. Rather, conservatives are arguing that
this TV show is misguided and wrong.

I can't think of politicians more meanspirited than Al Sharpton.

Exclusive interview with Reagan? Some good that will do.

> By Steve Gorman
> Tuesday, October 21, 2003
>
> Los Angeles (Reuters) - CBS may be courting a political
> firestorm with its TV mini-series "The Reagans," a
> dramatized portrait of the former president that has
> drawn complaints from conservatives a month before it
> airs.
>
> The New York Times, which said it obtained a copy of the
> final script, reported on Tuesday that the four-hour, two
> part film depicts both Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy,
> in a largely unflattering light while omitting much of
> what supporters regard as his key achievements.
>
> Adding insult to injury -- as far as Republicans are
> concerned -- the Gipper himself is played by James
> Brolin, husband of Democratic activist Barbra Streisand,
> while Nancy Reagan is portrayed by Judy Davis. Both are
> self-described liberals.
> [...]
> Nancy Reagan, meanwhile, is cast as a control freak with
> considerable sway over White House policies, even setting
> her husband's schedule according to the advice of
> astrologers.
>
> CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> well-documented, based in part on Reagan's authorized
> biography, the former first lady's own memoir, and books
> written by his supporters. . . .
>  [...]
> This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031022/tv_nm/leisure_reagan_dc_1
>
> The Clintons also consulted astrologers.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> Jyotishi, Vedic Astrologer
> Creator of newsgroups alt.jyotish, alt.language.hindi, alt.religion.hindu
> http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> Panchaang for 1 Kartik 5104, Sunday, October 26, 2003:
>
> Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Dakshinaya Jeevan Ritau
> Tula Mase Shukl Pakshe Bhanu Vasara Yuktayam
> Vaishakh Nakshatr Ayushman-Saubhagya Yog
> Balav-Kaulav Karan Dvitiya Yam Tithau
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
> educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
> this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
> the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
> and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
> current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
> are not necessarily those of the poster.

In <2003102904514...@nym.alias.net>, on 10/29/03

Sorry asshole. I was the one who stayed on the topic. The guy who didn't was
the other one. -- Now, get your meds checked. They are not working for you.

>leto...@nospam.net wrote:

Here is what you snipped mikie -- you did it because it makes an idiot out out
you -- which you clearly are:

Now mikie, go check those meds -- and do stay out of newsgroups where there
are people smarter then you.

In <200310290039...@nym.alias.net>, on 10/29/03

Can you give us specific instances where Republicans intimidated or
defeated Democratic opponents thru mean-spirited bullying instead of
arguments?
I thought one of the reasons Al Gore lost to Bush was his
mean-spirited, aggressive manner during one of the debates; Bush,
while badly losing the debate, won alot of sympathy for looking so
helpless against big Al. Naomi Wolf's alpha male advice didn't go
over too well.

In other words: "Facts don't matter."

git.
posting
top-
a
not
he's
least
At

E.g., LBJ threw a big parade with lots of horses and elephants, but
since Nixon was the one seen coming along afterward with the shovel and
the bucket, all the poop on the street must have been his fault.

(I have plenty of reasons to dislike Nixon, not that an inveterate
False-Dichotomitarian like you would ever deign to hear them.)

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

In article <abce8ddf.0310...@posting.google.com>,
nicoci...@yahoo.com (Elena Nakashima) posted:

Okay, but he could have defeated him more decisively had he not acted
meanspirited during the debate in which case Florida would not have
mattered.

What if the Bushistas were prepared to commit ANY crime
to place their puppet in the White House?

>Al Gore defeated Bush.

Until improperly-tossed military absentee ballots are counted.

But who cares? Nobody has right to swipe your property, no matter how
many drooling assholes voted for him.

I totally agree. But which herd of "drooling assholes" are you talking
about -- those who voted for Bush or those who voted for Gore?

And you're right, "who cares." We get screwed either way.

--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"

mikie, you're the stupidest kind of rightwing asshole. In this case you
snipped the part of my statement you didn't like -- because it tells a truth
you don't have the brains to deal with, and showed up your flawed thinking all
at the same time;

If we take your logic, that tricky dicky nixon cleaned up what LBJ started,
then you have to accept and apply the same logic to facts and realize that LBJ
picked up the Vietnam mess that IKE, tricky-dickie and the rightwing made in
the first place.

And going further, nixon didn't clean up the LBJ mess -- he (and who was the
idiot that pardoned him?) continued it for 6 more years. He ended up with the
same peace agreement that LBJ put on the table before he left office, and
nixon could have had that settlement on day one in office -- but not only
didn't agree to, but he never would have accepted it if Congress hadn't cut
off funds for continueing the war.

That was made clear in my original post;

You keep defending him mikie. Whether you know it or not, you're are rightwing
asshole without a clue. You are so screwed up that you don't even know what in
the hell you are. -- You need to seek professional treatment, or at least stop
mixing your meds.

What matters are the facts presented here in language. If you talk like
rightwing idiot -- then you are a rightwing idiot. End of story.

Bush won the majority of the electoral votes. If you mean Gore won by
popular vote, you're right. But American electoral process doesn't
work that way.
As for the crisis in Florida, I suppose it's conceivable that Gore
could have won if we went into the business of counting every ballot
and examining chads and etc, but such nitpicking only would invite
more nitpicking(which can spill over into endless recounts in other
states). The fact is had the result been reversed, with Gore ahead by
a slim margin, he would have called for a halt to recounts and Bush
would have called for endless recounts until result went in his favor.
It was all about political opportunism but I think it was resolved the
only way it could have been. There would have been a bigger scandal
had the result been reversed after what were several recounts.

> that Gore could have won . . .

No, Gore did win Florida -- please visit:

http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

ahh but this is the question many people believe Gore won Florida

all they needed to do was count every ballot -- heck even the guy who
designed the voting system and was a GOP 'witness' iin the court case
said his machine's error rate was higher than the difference and that
only a hand count could resolve things

just count every ballot -- there was plenty of time to do so -- the
electoral college wasn't meeting for many weeks.

>http://lies.com/display.cfm?id=181

Not Found
The requested URL /display.cfm was not found on this server.

Since you would defend LBJ for exactly what you'd chastise Ike or Nizon
over, rational minds can only conclude that you're a hypocrite.

>....and the rightwing made in the first place.

Could you please define "rightwing" in non-arbitrary terms?

(And please don't say "Republican", because they're so indistinguisable
from Democrats.)

Uh, that's a partisan site by and for Democrats, hardly an objective
source. The consensus by most Newspapers and magazines is that one
can't tell for sure even if every vote was counted as on a micro level
there will always be too many discrepancies. For example, some
Democrats complained that many voters accidentally voted for Pat
Buchanan instead of Al Gore and should be given another chance to cast
their ballot. Look, you can wrangle over the past. I don't much care
and at any rate, don't believe in changing the outcome by examining
chads and other such things.

The information is correct, no matter what bias you claim.

Deal with reality here; duba was not elected. He was appointed by 5 republican
members of the supreme court -- who stopped a recount that would have answered
the question.

No he didn't. He was handed a majority by 5 republican members of the court --
who stopped a recount that would have answered the question correctly.

>leto...@nospam.net wrote:

Here you are again, showing us more stupid, twisting thinking from the
rightwing. LBJ tried to end the war. He effectively resigned from office in an
effort to open the door to ending the war. nixon was just the opposite. He
spread the war and stated both publicly and privately he was not going to be
the first president to lose a war.

Now take your rightwing drivel and stop cross-posting.

If you need a definition of rightwing, you're to dumb to understand the
answer!

Spare us the nonsense. In the context of the Vietnam war and nixon, it was
clear who wanted war, fighting the commies and who didn't.

There were recounts which put Bush ahead. Then a recount of each
ballot by hand was called for and it raised more problems than solving
existing ones, what with checkers arguing over chads and so on. And,
if Gore came out ahead, then there would have been no stopping for the
Bush team to call for hand recounts in every state that was close
because there's bound to irregularities in every state. There would
have been no end to this madness.
The fact is in 49 states, the vote counts by conventional methods was
accepted. By same methods Bush won in Florida.
Of course, I'm sure had the reverse been the case with Gore winning by
a slim margin by machine count, Republicans would probably would have
made your argument while Democrats would have made the Republican
argument.

No it isn't. The consensus in the media is we'll never know. And, I
don't have much respect for a site that promotes Michael Moore as the
paragon of truth.

The problem is I can find sites opposing your 'facts' such as

http://www.florida2000election.com/facts.htm

though I suspect the above site is no more or less partisan than the
one you mentioned.

Exactly. There really is no way to know who "actually" won, becuase the margin was so thin
as to be within the margin of error. That razor-thin margin of victory, combined with the
fact that Bush lost the popular vote, means the CONservatives really ought to be a damn
sight less smug and condescending.

Dusty
--
This Week's column: ENOUGH ALREADY! http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_
1026.html

A "margin of error" is a statistical term which describes the
confidence that a particular SAMPLE reflects the actual numbers.
The ballots in Florida were not SAMPLED, but COUNTED.

Bush had more votes, so he won Florida. As a consequence, he
won the electoral college.

The fact that the makeup of the government hinged on a "razor-thin
margin of victory" demonstrates that platitudes about the
"will of the people" are a crock. The tens of millions of voters
who didn't vote for Bush don't have their will represented. Had
Florida swung the other way, then the same would be true of those
people who didn't vote for Gore. Also, consider that vast
numbers of people didn't even vote at all.

So, when the government takes away our money and the elected
officials decide for us how to spend it, based upon the premise
that we as a collective gave them permission, remember all the
people who didn't vote for those clowns. They didn't give
their permission and they shouldn't be coerced to pay for all
that rot.

Winston Churchill said, "A democracy is the worst form of government
except for all the others." If I had to pick between living here
or living under a dictator, I'd stay here. But just because I
prefer the lesser of many evils doesn't mean I'm going to deny
reality and pretend that coercion is "the will of the people."

> No it isn't. . . .

The information at the URL above is correct.

> The consensus in the media is we'll never know. . . .

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be justifying
Bush's residency in the White House.

Mike wasn't talking like a "rightwing idiot." A "righting idiot"
isn't going to offer "some really good" reasons "why Reagan was a
disasterous President."

I've been reading Mike for years and I know he isn't "rightwing."

Something else for you to consider: this "left" and "right" nonsense
is an archaic reference to the French parliament, two centuries ago.
Instead of trying to fit everyone on a one-dimensional line, the
practice of which is plagued by all manner of faulty assumptions,
why don't you consider attributes which really matter? For example:
how much does the person respect liberty? Does he want to leave
people alone who aren't hurting anyone, or does he want the government
making his decisions for him? Mike gave you the example of the
socialist appropriations bills which Reagan signed. Since those
programs deny people the liberty to choose how to spend their money,
I'd say that put Mike on the side of respecting liberty.

you really have to stop telling the turth about such things, it only
confuses the conservitive mind (as small as it is).

LBJ made a lot of money off the war but he was also a very tortured
man. Many say he was going off the deep end because of Kennedy and
the war wasn't helping.

I do remember him stopping the bombing at least twice and I do
remember Nixon the Invader (Why is it that every time a republican
gets in office theres a war?) invaded Cambodia which set off a chain
of events that ended up with the Lilling Fields and then the communist
invasion of Cambodia (by the Vietnamese).

THOM

They stopped the recount because it was being rigged to not count
overseas military ballots (90% for Bush) which not only outnumbered
"chad" votes, but were originally and improperly rejected.

It really must mean something to you when your aspiriations to
theft-funded living via the ballot are so extreme that you actually see
a difference between "conservatives" (Republicans) and Democrats when it
comes to things like appropriations bills wherein all the pirated loot
is spread around.

That's a lie.

Oh, the poor "tortured" LBJ, suffering every day while commanding pretty
young thing interns to take notes while he sat on the White House
commode with his legs spread like Clinton's on the cover of Esquire.

Your hero-worshipping is positively.....fascist.

excuse me moron but I wasn' worshiping him, in fact I believe he had
something to do with the Kennedy assination. I was statinmg facts, he
got rich from the war and he was a tortured person internially.
That's not worship.

Your outburst indicates you are either drunk, stoned or stupid.

THOM

so he stopped the bombing and called for peace talks at least twice
cause he wanted to take a vacation on the Bush ranch???

THOM

here here Eagle Eye!!! The very idea that every person is totally
polarized at the same level in everything they do is just plain silly.

In Europe they don't use a left right line but a + sign with left/
right and authoritarian/libertarian (thats the up down part.

I for instance am a GREEN but I'm also a gun owner and shooter. Many
of the people at the Los Alamos Sportsman's Club that I shot with (Los
Alamos NM) were democrats! The left and right are guilty of trying to
cubby hole people so they can deal with them easier, the right is ther
worst though.

THOM

to a few companies like Haliburton without competitive bids?

THOM

doesn't matter, the COLLEGE elects the president, not the people.
THOM

As I have written before, Democrats and Republicans
are two parts of the same team.

Are you just against welfare or against social security, public
spending for libraries, schools, etc?

"Public spending" is a euphemism for "spending stolen loot".

As far as I am concerned, you can go out and buy every kid in Africa a
flush-toilet and a Cadillac, provided you do it with *your* money.

Yes! Yes. That's it, lad. Come...into...the...light.

Entreating the enemy as to their answer to your suggestion that they
retreat from the field of battle when they think they're winning is
construed by rational minds to amount to "trying to end a war".

The most practical way to "end a war" is to quickly *win it*.

Not since Jesse Helms retired, no.

> CBS said the film, airing Nov. 16 and 18, is fair and
> well-documented

...which is an astounding statement, given that they just shitcanned
this wretchedly dishonest crock of shit.

<laughter>

--
Giftzwerg
***
"[A] coalition of nations--including France, Germany and Canada--
mounted a massive air war against Serbia a few years ago without
Security Council authorization, under President Clinton's leadership.
There was no 'imminence' of attack on any allied nation, nor did Serbia
represent a threat to anyone outside her own borders. Why the reversal
of policy when Iraq was involved, with the same nations piously
insisting that Security Council approval had to be obtained before
any military action could be initiated--and that the absence of any
such approval had rendered illegitimate any military action against
Saddam Hussein?"
- Brian Mulroney

Where were you able to see the movie or read the script?