Webisode #4 is up at Sci-Fi.com!

Posted by: Gary at 12:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well, it looks like Ducky'll be joining the Resistance after all. I don't quite understand these webisodes; or the whole premise of how we came from last season into this season's storyline. Ah well, scifi is sc-fi.

Posted by: wordsmith at September 14, 2006 11:39 AM (nrGCx)

2 Pretty simple actually. Baltar won the election. Most of the people in the fleet settled on "New Caprica". The Cylons found them. Galactica and Pegasus scooted to avoid being annihilated. Now the humans, defenseless, live under Cylon occupation. I admit I wasn't crazy about this plot turn at the end of last season but now I'm looking forward to it.

Posted by: Gary at September 14, 2006 12:31 PM (QoxB+)

3 HELLO!!! I SO CALLED THIS ONE!!!

Posted by: Skye at September 14, 2006 05:21 PM (l9Zv4)

4 It just felt like we were skipping an entire season away, just so we could get to the occupation. One minute they were discovering New Caprica, the next commercial break a lot of time has elapsed and changes and developments occurred. I still don't get the Cylons. Why allow anyone who ever served in the military to live? If I were the evil Cylon, I'd slay all the potential sheepdogs, and leave only the sheep. Make an example out of anyone thinking of forming a Resistance group. But maybe the Cylons aren't as depraved and evil and inhuman in their feelings as we'd like to think.....?

Posted by: wordsmith at September 17, 2006 03:55 PM (nrGCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I watched the final two hours of the ABC mini-series last night.

This part picks up just after the break-up of the Millenial terror plot that was to have taken place on December 31,1999. The first major event is the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. The Clinton Administration is winding down in its last few months in office and the President is focused on Middle East peace talks rather than retaliation - even though the opportunity is there.

Again, Richard Clarke continues to be portrayed as a frustrated advocate for going after Bin Laden and his network but no one wants to listen to him. We, the audience, share in his frustrations. Clarke continues to serve in the Bush Administration, which is by no means given a pass by this film. Clarke's focus is redirected away from counter-terrorism in a "restructuring" of the NSA. It took almost eight months in office before National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is prepared to present a plan for dealing with Bin Laden. Of course, by then it was too little, too late.

Clinton apologists have no reason to complain that their guy was treated shabbily to the benefit of his successor. They will anyway.

This stage of the story emphasizes the "wall" that barred information sharing between the FBI and CIA, as illustrated by a CIA operative's meeting with Agent John O'Neill. The CIA has pictures of suspects of the Cole bombing that may be in the U.S. However, he won't share the identities of these men nor will he let O'Neill's staff keep the pictures.

Political correctness ruled the day. And if there is one perfect example of idiocy that the 9/11 commission uncovered in its findings, it is this ridiculous impediment to communication that most contributed to our inability to prevent the attacks. This policy, immortalized by the infamous "Gorelick Memo", has since been discarded. Thank God for that.

The film ends with a re-enactment of the events of that morning as many of the players, upon hearing the news, know immediately that it must have been the work of Bin Laden.

Actually, the fact that Democrats raised such a fuss over "The Path To 9/11" probably resulted in the mini-series registering such high ratings. As I stated in my previous post on part one, the importance of this presentation was its focus on the mindset this country had on September 10th and how we can never allow ourselves to return to that mindset.

This is THE issue of our time: the protection of America from further attacks and the destruction of those forces who would launch and support those attacks, wherever they may be. This is a war and it's being fought all over the world, on many different fronts. Even the enemy acknowledges this. I encourage Democrats to pull their heads out of their sphincters and get with the program. There's no use in whining about a film that they think makes them look bad. They're doing a good enough job of that all on their own.

Posted by: Gary at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.

Thank you DVR.

I watched part one last night. Sunday was reserved for watching the Giants blow their first game to the Colts and Monday was my wedding anniversary, so I'm just now getting to it.

First point: The film is well made. The pacing is not too slow or too fast. The editing and cinematography keep you riveted. The use of hand-held cameras gives it an air of authenticity.

Second point: The portrayal of Richard Clarke is very positive (so far). He's actually one of the few higher up White House types that take this threat seriously. Why is Clarke so upset about this film? Doesn't make sense. Maybe he objects to being played by Milton, the red stapler guy from Office Space?

Third point: No, Sandy Burglar and Maddy Albright are not presented in a favorable light but neither is George Tenet or anyone else at a level of significant responsibility. Their words and actions (or lack thereof) are not so much indicative of individual character flaws as they are of a particular mindset that our government had at the time.

The film is more of an examination of what happens when you treat counter-terrorism as a "Law and Order" episode. We did this from Nixon to Bush 43, until 9/11/01. At that point, the current President and his cabinet realized that this is really a war - one like we've never fought before - that requires treating it like one.

It also provides a better understanding of the vastness of the terror network and how hard so many people have worked to track it down. The people in the CIA, FBI and other agencies who get their hands dirty understood the threat. It's the politicians and the bureaucrats who didn't. The agents didn't fail us, their bosses did. I'm amazed at what they were able to accomplish even in that restrictive environment.

If we give these folks the tools that they need and support what they do, we will defeat the terrorists almost every time. As Harvey Keitel's John O'Neill says "Nobody bats 1.000." But we need to recognize what we're dealing with and accept what we need to do to fight it.

If our government holds true to a "post-9/11" perspective we have a chance. To go back to a "pre-9/11" mentality would be suicide. And the problem with Democrats is that they desperately cling to a "pre-9/11" mentality. They prefer treating terrorists as criminals with Constitutional rights. They'd rather have court victories than military victories. They think negotiation is a viable tool in dealing with these animals. We can never go back to that old mindset.

And this reason above all others - the reminder that this approach is what doomed us to failure - is why Democrats should be most worried about this film, not the affect it will have on individual legacies and reputations.

Only by accepting responsibility and demonstrating that lessons have been learned can Democrats ever hope to convince the American people that they can be trusted with their safety. By demanding that "The Path To 9/11" be pulled in an attempt to cover-up their shortcomings, they have done more damage to their credibility than any movie ever could.

Posted by: Gary at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.

Part Three is now online.

Posted by: Gary at 04:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Government officials threaten and intimidate television broadcasters with tactics that would make Josef Stalin proud. But then there are plenty of ideological tenants shared by both Soviet Communists and Democrats. Obviously a big one is censorship. This is one of those times when the masks come off.

If they succeed, Liberals everywhere will chalk it up as a political victory. What will be totally lost on them however is the political damage they are inflicting on themselves by allowing voters to see just how petty, thuggish and hypocritical they really are.

I don't know about you but I feel a "chill wind" on the back of my neck when I look at these guys.

UPDATE: 12:20PM:
Sanctuary blog has a graphic that says it all.

Posted by: Gary at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

SciFi.com is broadcasting ten 2.5 minute Battlestar Galactica "webisodes" leading up to the October 6th season premiere to whet the fan's appetites. Titled "The Resistance", each part will be launched every tues and thurs for the rest of the month and the first week of October.

Part One is here. Click the link that says "The Resistance: Part One" in the archives. After it runs, it will automatically advance to Part Two, which premiered today.

Very reminiscent of Nazi-occupied Europe during WWII. Cool stuff!

Posted by: Gary at 02:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I couldn't believe how long I had to wait until the new season; but now that it's upon us, I can't believe how fast time flies. It seems like it wasn't too long ago that it was the 2004 Election.

Posted by: wordsmith at September 07, 2006 01:51 PM (nrGCx)

2 Yes, the writers of BSG have turned out yet another fine product - one that portrays 'insurgents' as the good guys. Hmmm..perhaps these webisodes are a reflection of the writers view of 'insurgents' in Iraq today? Watch them and decide for yourself.

Posted by: Skye at September 07, 2006 06:54 PM (MfeOa)

3 No, I think the writer's are making more historical comparisons, say to the French underground during WWII. Tyrol, Tigh and co. are "insurgents" in the sense that they are freedom-fighters. They're fighting to escape the oppression of the Cylons. The insurgents in Iraq are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists who are fighting against freedom, because that's what they fear. Freedom is what they wish to defeat, so they can impose their warped view of Islamofascism on the people of the Middle-East.

Posted by: Gary at September 07, 2006 07:34 PM (Z0vta)

4 I completely agree with you, Gary. Terrorists should NEVER be compared to freedom fighters in any way, shape or form and I get the historical reflection of Vichy france being played out in the fictional setting of New Caprica. Yet this comparison to Iraq is being heard loud and clear by the fans..I quote a response from Skiffy's thread discussing the Webisodes: Well, the Cylons on New Caprica don't really seem like the Nazi's. Anyone who they interrogate is "legitimately" a military target, and their presence in New Caprica is no different than the presence of the US in Iraq. They treat the people equally "nice" and have very similar goals for occupation. And this is "New Caprica" we're talking about here, if we were talking about the original attack then I'd partially agree with you. What's next? A colonial suicide bomber? The more informed posters on Skiffy have challenged this statement in later posts on the thread. These posts and other discussion boards that I frequent echo a similar political parallel to Iraq. Do I think they are right? Absolutely not. I feel the writers have crafted this story (webisode & series) with ambiguity to allow this type of comparison.

Posted by: Skye at September 07, 2006 09:41 PM (MfeOa)

5 I think ambiguity is exactly what they've intentionally done. I still think back to the original BSG pilot, where the Cylon appeasers and the pacifists made it possible for the destruction of the Colonies to take place; and then when that ambassador guy on that bug planet (sorry, it's been a long while) ordered all Colonial Warriors attend festivities on the planet in dress uniforms, unarmed. They musta all been democrats. Thankfully, Adama and the military were wiser than that. What I'm not getting, is if the Cylons were vicious and evil, why didn't they slaughter and make example of, anyone who served in the military? Tigh should not be a free man, with his military service record. Ah, well. I'm sure all will come clear when it airs. Ok, not really.

Posted by: wordsmith at September 07, 2006 11:06 PM (nrGCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

BSG Season 3 premiers October 6th.

The hotly anticipated third season of Battlestar Galactica will premiere on Friday, October 6, SCI FI Channel has announced.

According to previous reports, the new season will kick off with a 2-hour episode, made up of two formerly stand-alone episodes: "Occupation" and "Precipice."

The story picks up several months after the conclusion of Season Two, revealing that the Cylons have occupied the rough Colonial settlement on New Caprica. While some live with and even cooperate with the Cylons, others have started an insurgency against them.

Meanwhile, having fled the planet when the Cylons arrived, the Battlestars Galactica and Pegasus plan to return and rescue the last remnants of their civilization.

As Wordsmith so aptly pointed out, no BSG Friday posting would be complete without an obligatory Lee Adama picture.

ENJOY!

Posted by: Skye at 06:34 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.