Zero Dark Thirty - Nothing

My brain is still reeling from Zero Dark 30. Here are some highlights:

At least a half hour of torture porn that somehow managed to be boring and repetitive, followed by rapid-fire spitting of Arabic names I had likely read before, but could not place (nor did any of them get explained much).

The propagandistic propping up of the old saw that torture got any useful information, let alone being the key unlocking the hiding place of Osama.

A pasty mushroom-woman neurotic central character who took down the world's most wanted with a series of tics, spasms, and outbursts of hissy fits interrupting her otherwise cold, clammy, affectless demeanor.

A fairly good video game version (complete with dirty-screen overlay) of the actual raid in Pakistan. Worth the ticket? No, but I cared much more about the Navy Seal team than I did about the careerist, torture-loving wanks at the CIA the film massaged so lovingly.

So, we have, overall, a stew of nastiness that the critics love. I walked away muttering, "I'll never trust the critics again." Which only confirmed what I was muttering when I left The Master. More than that, this movie had dialog your average 15-year-old could have written. The Master at least felt like a 17-year-old wrote it.

I rate it: Zero, zilch, nada.

More: Senators write angry letters about the movie's central point, and the CIA's playing footsie with the picture people. 

Zero Dark Thirty - The Central Lie?

The story gets curiouser and curiouser. Senators Feinsten, McCain, and Levin have been writing letters hotly disputing the movie's central premise: that the CIA tortured the name of the courier out of a detainee, who they followed to Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

They want to know what the CIA told the Zero Dark Thirty people, who they are also asking to set the record straight. In communication to both they throw in these interesting bullet points about the torture program:

• The CIA did not first learn about the existence of the UBL courier from CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Nor did the CIA discover the courier's identity from CIA detainees subjected to coercive techniques. No CIA detainee reported on the courier’s full name or specific whereabouts, and no detainee identified the compound in which UBL was hidden. Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name, and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program. 

• Information to support the UBL operation was obtained from a wide variety of intelligence sources and methods. CIA officers and their colleagues throughout the Intelligence Community sifted through massive amounts of information, identified possible leads, tracked them down, and made considered judgments based on all of the available intelligence. 

• The CIA detainee who provided the most accurate information about the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to coercive interrogation techniques.

Gee, it looks like someone gave them some kind of information about the courier (after the identity was known?), but then they tortured the guy anyway. Nice.

The letters also point to a bit of coyness on the part of the CIA, and tries to pin the agency down on the details. Stay tuned.

Again, Zero Dark Thirty's central point is that torture works, torture is glorious, torture is what we should do. Take that away and the movie's story falls apart.

See my thrilling review of this dreadful movie.

ROMNEY AND CAIRO, WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

Romney's people need to exert message control. I know he's getting slammed for what he said, but it could derive from a combination of bad information and bad advice. Let's look at what happened, even though details are, ahem, sketchy.

UPDATED HERE

Okay, here's the Cairo Embassy statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others

This is about the notably bad video, Innocence of Muslims. It may or not be made by its poster, Sam Bacile.

The press release above is dated Tues., Sept. 11, 2012. I see no time stamp on it, so I have no idea when it was written. This becomes crucial, and I'll update when I find out, if I can, because now the Republicans are lining up behind Romney's attack on this statement. Sarah Palin, first to flap gums as always, claims it was sent while the Egyptian embassy was being stormed.

They obviously should be doing damage control, because they're all but saying this statement caused the attacks. That's a real stretch.

Here they might be seen as aligning with Koran-burning nut job Terry Jones. He seems to have been pumping this video. No one seems to know a damn thing about this video's true origins, but it got mentioned on Egyptian television after an Arab-language dubbing happened. Somehow Pastor Jones's promotion gets on government radar, as the linked article here reads:

On Wednesday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Mr. Jones and asked him to consider withdrawing his support for the video, a senior administration official told reporters in a conference call. Mr. Jones’ response was “non-committal,” the administration official said.

Perhaps the statement came out before the rest of it all. I don't know. If so, that's a problem for a blame-the-statement messaging, and backtracking may ensue. Whether chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be calling up private citizens and telling them to put a lid on it, that I have the answer to. Er, no. Love him or hate him, this nut job has every right to pull his nuttery. He can light Goodnight Moon, holy books, or a set of encyclopedias on fire in the public square, for all I care.

In Libya, while there was a protest happening in front of the embassy, rumors fly that there may have been a planned attack that used an ordinary protest as cover for the operation. I don't know. If that turns out to be true, then Romney's shot off his mouth too soon.

The White House is saying they did not clear the statement. Fine, if true, and Secretary of State Clinton has basically restated the premise: not a great idea to deliberately insult a people's religion, because we've been supposedly a tolerant nation for oh so long. Unless you happened to be a Native American, or, well, let's not bring all that up now.

So, the timing is crucial. When did the statement go out? Whether the Libyan attack was planned is also crucial, because no cause and effect can be found.

See Also: ROMNEY AND CAIRO UPDATE
ROMNEY LEAK TAPES: DEEP INTERPRETATION