Four weeks after FX's Rescue Me featured a New York City firefighter telling a French journalist how the 9/11 terrorist attacks were part of “a massive neo-conservative government effort” to enable “American global domination,” Tuesday night's episode gave the French character “Genevieve,” interviewing firefighters for a book on 9/11 first-responders, a platform to rail against how the U.S. failed to heed France's advice in starting “two new wars” in the name of “revenge.”
Discussing 9/11 with firefighter “Tommy Gavin,” played by show creator Denis Leary, “Genevieve” agreed “9/11 was a tragedy. To most of the world it was a tragedy,” but she fretted, “to Americans, it was the beginning of the end of the world.” As the two walked along a Manhattan street following a visit to Ground Zero, she lectured, presumably alluding to Iraq: “France warned the U.S. government because of their experience with Algeria. And then told them that maybe this was not a good idea and they didn't want to send their people to die.” As to why she wants to write about 9/11:
It's an amazing story, it's a story about how so many people in the world came to support America and its people, to say, “hey, you know what? You've done so much to help us and to support us, we want to give back to you.” But what did your government do with all that good will? Hell, you went right back to war. You started two new wars. In the name of what? Revenge?...Every goddamn war is about revenge -- and the French don't believe in guns.To which, Gavin zinged: “Or soap.”
Audio: MP3 clip (2:20, 900 Kb)
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were part of “a massive neo-conservative government effort” to enable “American global domination,” a character on FX's "Rescue Me" argued on Tuesday night's episode. In the drama about firefighters in New York City, firefighter “Franco Rivera,” played by actor Daniel Sunjata, a real-life 9/11 “truther,” laid out his theory for a French journalist interviewing firefighters for a book on 9/11 first-responders. As noted in a February NewsBusters post, in a New York Times story about the then-upcoming storyline, Brian Stelter reported the ludicrous theory “may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media company (FX is operated by the News Corporation).”In subsequent episodes, “Franco” has taken quite a bit of heat from other firefighters, and a widow, angry at him for tarring the department and the memory of their husband, by lending his name to the conspiracy theories.
During the episode, “Franco” outlined the four-point plan by the Project for a New American Century, starting with how Bush-Cheney “came to power with plans already made to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.” Second, “we have to make huge technological advances with our armed forces, that for some reason include the capability to fight wars from outer space.” Third, “huge increases in military spending” to the neglect of “sick and dying first-responders, 9/11's heroes, who can't even pay their light bill let alone their medical bills.” Fourth, “we changed the definition of pre-emptive attack so we can unilaterally bomb the shit out of, invade and occupy countries even if they pose no credible threat or had nothing to do with 9/11.” Finally:How you going to put it into action? I mean, the American people are never going to go for shit like that, right? You're damn straight. No, what you need is an event, an event that gets everyone's heads turned around the right way. What you need is a new Pearl Harbor.
From the May 12 episode, in what matches the video/audio, the exchange between “Gavin” and “Genevieve,” played by actress Karina Lombard:
GENEVIÉVE: You should open up about it, be vulnerable. It's attractive.
TOMMY GAVIN: It's not like a bartering chip I use to pick up chicks with. You know, that was like the beginning of World War III for us, so-
GENEVIÉVE: Yeah, okay. That is unattractive.
GAVIN: What?
GENEVIÉVE: Well, the part where you go from how you feel to World War III.
GAVIN: But that is how I feel.GENEVIÉVE: You know, 9/11 was a tragedy. To most of the world it was a tragedy, but to Americans, it was the beginning of the end of the world.
GAVIN: What's your point?
GENEVIÉVE: Well, you know, France warned the U.S. government because of their experience with Algeria. And then told them that maybe this was not a good idea and they didn't want to send their people to die.
GAVIN: Listen, I don't get why you want to do a book about 9/11 if this is your take on America.
GENEVIÉVE: Because it's an amazing story, it's a story about how so many people in the world came to support America and its people, to say, “hey, you know what? You've done so much to help us and to support us, we want to give back to you.” But what did your government do with all that good will? Hell, you went right back to war. You started two new wars. In the name of what? Revenge?
GAVIN: All right, hang on. First of all, I don't know shit about no Algerians, okay? Second of all, yeah I wanted revenge. I wanted revenge for my cousin. I wanted revenge for my country. I wanted revenge for the 50 other guys I knew that day that got buried under that shit. How am I supposed to feel? I wanted blood. I wanted it in like a week. So, I'll be honest with you, I basically feel the same right now. So, shoot me.
GENEVIÉVE: Every goddamn war is about revenge -- and the French don't believe in guns.
GAVIN: Nah, or soap.
GENEVIÉVE: Uhh. Great cliche.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Don't speak for me, Denis
May 13, 2009 - 02:58 ET by KC MulvilleRevenge? That's what Iraq and Afghanistan were all about? Please.
This is just political ventriloquism. He's using the fiction to set up a rhetorical straw man. By minimizing America's reaction into brutish revenge, he thinks he's captured the moral high ground. Add in the "sophisticated French wisdom," and suddenly Leary gets to lecture and look down on everyone else.
Now, to some degree, all fiction "with a message" does the same thing. That's why we enjoy the fiction but we stay cautious about the message. You have to be a careful reader, because it's easy to get swept up emotionally in the appeal of the characters. The fiction becomes manipulation when the protagonist is so appealing (or the villain is so unattractive) that the author throws the logic out with the bathwater.
On the one hand, you hope that audiences are alert to any manipulation. But, at some point, most of us stand back and say, wait a minute ... if it's just good clean fun, why do the filmmakers embed these "messages" in the first place? It's easy to say that the viewing public knows "it's just a movie," but if so, why do producers keep trying to manipulate?
And, the antidote to such manipulation is to remind the viewers, over and over, that they have to beware. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.
If it wasn't for the U.S.
May 13, 2009 - 03:11 ET by mostlymoderateIf it wasn't for the U.S. getting into wars, the French would be speaking German right now and a statue of Adolph Hitler would be at the top of the Eiffel Tower. The French also didn't have two of their World Trade Centers destroyed by terrorists. I like the French but I am afraid they have let their entire country be overrun with terrorist sympathizers and liberal degenerates. Unfortunately, the same thing is propagating in this country.
Au contraire! The French
May 13, 2009 - 04:04 ET by RR GOPAu contraire!
The French do believe in guns...when it comes to defending their national interests...and they really aren't afraid to use them when it comes to that. There are millions of graves of France's enemies scattered around the world.
From what I gather France was thoroughly infiltrated by Communists (as was Italy, Germany, Spain and many other European countries, thus the Fascist reaction) at least by the end of World War I. The Vichy Government's millice spent much time fighting against them (over here and in other Socialist countries they'd call them 'the Resistance' of course).
But they have their nationalists and conservatives as well. It seems De Gaulle had to placate both groups which essentially paralyzed France. Great Britain never allowed the Communists to set up shop there (nor the Fascists like Moseley's Black Shirts), and West Germany was at the forward edge of NATO so it wasn't going to be allowed to go too far to the Left.
The Conservative nature of France can be attested to how they stubbornly held on to Indochina and especially Algeria into the '60s. With Britain shedding its colonial holdings, the French probably felt that they would be pressured into doing the same if they were in a close alliance with Britain. And one has to admit that Britain's national interests had often conflicted with those of France and other Continental powers.
So, the French Communist elements didn't want to be antagonistic towards the Communist bloc and too cozy with the U.S. and both the Communists and the French nationalists didn't trust Great Britain (especially since it was they who attacked the French navy when France fell to Germany...didn't go over well).
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
France's duplicity
May 13, 2009 - 05:22 ET by Ted ClarkeMan, to have this attitude come from a French character is really galling...especially now, in the wake of France - and other countries like Germany and Russia - refusing to help out with the Gitmo detainees! And these were the ones in the U.N. Security Council who refused to enforce those 17 meaningless resolutions. There corruption made the war in Iraq inevitable.
Think how differently things would have been if our supposed "allies" had never taken Saddam's bribes. (Thank you Kofi Annan and your U.N. Oil-For-Food program!) If the Security Council had committed itself to actually enforcing its first resolution - let alone the subsequent 16 - then Saddam would have felt isolated and defeated. He would have had no choice but to honor the terms of his Gulf War surrender. The WMD inspectors would have had free reign to to do their work. The political prisoners would have been released. The torture chambers would have been shut down. The No-Fly Zones would have been made unnecessary. The countless mass graves that Saddam had filled during the Clinton years would never have been dug. And ultimately, there would have been no need to invade Iraq. But France, Germany and Russia's greedy acceptance of Saddam's bribes lead him to believe that Bush was the one who was isolated and defeated. In effect, "The Duplicitous Trinity" had given "The Butcher of Baghdad" the green light to provoke us to war. All that American blood is on the hands of these scum bags who are now, once again, stabbing us in the back.
Anyway, MY American blood is boiling so I'd best give it a rest.
Very good
May 13, 2009 - 07:49 ET by general companyPretty much what I was thinking,
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
France -- Defeat 'R Us.
May 13, 2009 - 05:40 ET by ThisnThatCan anyone name one instance where France has made a correct strategic decision? Let's take the end of WWI, for example.
In Nov 1918, German generals requested armistice negotiations with the Allies. Under the terms of the armistice, the German Army was allowed to remain intact and was not forced to admit defeat by surrendering. U.S. General George Pershing had misgivings about this, saying it would be better to have the German generals admit defeat so there could be no doubt. The French and British were convinced however that Germany would not be a threat again.
The failure to force the German General Staff to admit defeat would have a huge impact on the future of Germany. Although the army was later reduced in size, its impact would be felt after the war as a political force dedicated to German nationalism, not democracy.
The German General Staff also would support the false idea that the army had not been defeated on the battlefield, but could have fought on to victory, except for being betrayed at home, the infamous 'Stab in the Back' theory.
Way to go, France -- pave the path towards WWII, when you were defeated within 10 weeks of non-fighting. And we (the U.S.) are supposed to take advice from you on when, where, and how to engage our enemies? I don't think so.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
"...correct strategic
May 13, 2009 - 09:46 ET by mattm"...correct strategic decision?" Yes - to side with the U.S. in the Revolutionary War. Since then, not much.
The Germans suffered about
May 13, 2009 - 13:07 ET by RR GOPThe Germans suffered about 150,000 casualties invading France...hardly a cake walk. Anybody remember that the British were there also? Dunkirk anyone?
What about how handily the Belgians and the Dutch were defeated? Don't hear too many jokes about their ineptitude. The German Army at that time simply was not that big and powerful and could have been defeated. As in later in the war it was largely unmechanized. The Germans simply had a better plan.
Why don't we criticize or joke about the Americans for getting surprised at Pearl Harbor? Losing the Philippines? Wake Island? How about how the British General Percival losing Malay and finally Singapore to a much smaller Japanese force? How about the Russians losing entire armies to the Germans in a matter of weeks? Where's the praise from the average American about how the Finns initially mauled the Soviet Union when they invaded?
The U.S. was a party to the Armistice. If Paris and London chose to blink when Hitler remilitarized the Rheinland, carried out the Anschluss with Austria and dismantled Czechoslovakia...where was Washington?
Sorry...I refuse to pick and choose historical items merely to support a stereotype against an entire culture, especially one not really so different from ours. Also, how can one honestly say that many, many Americans are not arrogant towards if not ignorant of, other peoples and cultures?
We have a lot in common with the Europeans. They've been brainwashed by the same Marxist ideology that we have over here. But, I do believe that we should not emulate them nor should we give up our national interests in deference to theirs, because after all, they too are ignorant of us and it is the Marxists who command their perceptions of us so we're not going to win support from the average European. At least not as long as these Commies maintain their power in their political systems, universities, media, etc.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
I didn't see any Dutch or
May 13, 2009 - 18:08 ET by ThisnThatI didn't see any Dutch or Belgians in this article trying to give us advice on when and where to fight our enemies. I only saw the French do that. If any Dutch, Belgians, or Americans want to see our defeat, then I will also speak out against them.
And the British, Russians, nor Americans surrendered during WWII. France did. And now they're telling us not to fight. That's why I'm picking on them, and no one else. They can just shut up until they win one without fighting.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Ugghh..
May 13, 2009 - 06:13 ET by superconI almost threw a beer can at my T.V. when I saw that crap.I like the show but if they keep up with that conspiracy and lecture nonsense I may have to live without it.To top it all off they have a fire fighter talking all that inside job stuff as if because he is a firefighter that lends it more credibility.I have seen several veteran's groups that were against the war in Iraq but have yet to see any organized group of NYC firemen saying the WTC was an inside job.
It's hurting the show.
Hey Janet Napolitano...I'm proud to be a Right-winger.
But it's not like they
May 13, 2009 - 09:34 ET by balboaBut it's not like they showed it as the only opinion. There was quite a good deal of sensible opposition to Franco's tirades, both from the other firemen and from one of the passed fireman's wife. Shows are big enough to have more than one opinion in them, aren't they?
As for the French chick, just because her character said it doesn't automatically make it true.
FOR SALE
May 13, 2009 - 07:14 ET by theduck6French assault rifle
Never fired
Dropped only once
It's not two wars...
May 13, 2009 - 07:21 ET by owr084"You started two new wars."
Wrong. this is a pet peeve of mine. It is not two wars, it is one war, the Global War on Terror. Currently, Iraq and Afghanistan are two theaters in the Global War on Terror.
Case in point - history does not say we had the European War II, the African War and the Asian-Pacific War during the 30s and 40s. Or for that matter a war named after every country a battle was fought in... It was World War II, composed of primarily the European Theater, the African Theater and the Asian Pacific Theater.
Apparently WW II was
May 13, 2009 - 07:41 ET by motherbeltApparently WW II was called that because it was "two wars"...you know, the one in the Pacific, and the one in Europe!
\sarc
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Failing to heed French advice
May 13, 2009 - 08:05 ET by c5thenis usually a sign that you are proceeding correctly.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
They always talk about all
May 13, 2009 - 08:18 ET by freecitizenThey always talk about all of the support we got from the world. As far as I can remember the only support anyone gave us was condolences. Just words. Just words.
Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.
We should never forget that
May 13, 2009 - 08:23 ET by eaglewingz08We should never forget that the French coddled supported and protected the Ayatollah Khomeinei when he was forced into exile by the Shah of Iran, and did their best to get Jimmy Carter to reinstall him back into power. We should also remember it was the French who got us involved into Vietnam, and the French who watched Sadaam Hussein's back, as well. Taking advice from the French is like taking advice from Satan. If the French man/woman on the street is for something, the odds are best if you do the opposite.
GENEVIÉVE: Because it's an
May 13, 2009 - 08:27 ET by BDGENEVIÉVE: Because it's an amazing story, it's a story about how so many people in the world came to support America and its people, to say, “hey, you know what? You've done so much to help us and to support us, we want to give back to you.” But what did your government do with all that good will? Hell, you went right back to war. You started two new wars. In the name of what? Revenge?
Grrrrrrrrrr!
May 13, 2009 - 11:33 ET by Chris Norman“Genevieve” agreed “9/11 was a tragedy. To most of the world it was a tragedy"
This show is fiction, and the writers can put any words they want in supposedly "real people" - like a "French journalist" - yeah, where else but on television show does one encounter a French journalist? But, many other really real people are saying the same things, and to them - and the "Rescue Me" (a show who's own self-importance grows with each season) writers, I once again yell:
9/11 was NOT a "TRAGEDY"! It was an ATROCITY! A "tragedy" is a hurricane or a tornado - anything that no one intentionally causes that kills people and destroys property. 9/11 was an atrocity that was planned and executed by men - animals, actually - and it caused the deaths as was intended. I'm beginning to think that many people deliberately mis-use the term to diminish the idea that this was an act of war and as such, cannot be addressed with force. When have you seen anyone label Pearl Harbor a "tragdedy"? 9/11 was not, repeat NOT a "tragedy"!
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
The only thing France has
May 13, 2009 - 11:22 ET by kbassThe only thing France has done for us is get our Soldiers killed. They all seem to forget that, if it was not for us they would all be speeking German right now!
Show me the French version
May 13, 2009 - 12:23 ET by jdhawkShow me the French version of a military salute: both arms raised in the air . . . Plonk!
The French were too busy sucking up profits in the "Oil for Food" program to want a war in Iraq. Meanwhile, they basically sat out 50 some years of the Cold War by conveniently opting out of NATO.
Regarding Algeria, they were a colonial power attempting to twart the yearning of freedom of the Algerian people. They sent in the French paratroopers and brutalized and tortured people in an attempt to suppress the rebellion. It didn't work. A film, "The Battle of Algiers" portrays the events of that time. It has been reviewed periodically by our own Special Operations forces on how to win the battle and lose a war.
By the way, it was the Vichy French that fired on American Army Rangers in WW II upon the invasion of northern Africa in Operation Torch. To their credit, the French resistance did everything in their power to prevent the exchange and get the Vichy French to surrender.