Lions for Lambs, Defiance, and a look back/forward at Red Dawn

Today, I spent most of my day off work watching some movies.

I watched my Netflix delivery of "Lions for Lambs," starring Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and a really good cast. I also viewed "Defiance," starring the current "James Bond," Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber, who you might know as "Sabretooth," in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Watchin both movies, with my current events/political radar going as it always is, I came to some interesting ideas and conclusions.

First, in "Lions for Lambs," I do want to congratulate and thank director Robert Redford for doing America a favor, and for doing the right thing. For once, finally, the American soldiers were NOT the bad guys. Much to the dismay of people like Senators John Kerry, Dick Durbin, John Murtha, and Ted [hic] Kennedy, our soldiers were portrayed as honorable, intelligent, brave, decent men. They were not shown as ruthless killers and pillagers, much as the descriptions our 'distinguished' senators have described. So, in all earnest, thank you, Mr. Redford, for not making a mockery of our soldiers like so many other Hollywood movies tend to do.

The movie tended to drag on with a lot of conversation. There were brief stints of military action and a few explosions and f-bombs to wake up the dozing, but overall the movie was a bust. I give Redford credit for seemingly trying to represent all the arguments involving the current War on Terror, including the legendary media personality who really cannot say that they want America to win the war, and is too timid to vocalize the fact they might actually support an American defeat. I really do not recommend the film, however, as it is more of a lecture that accomplishes nothing but offering the sad ending of two of America's bravest dying together on a frozen Afghan mountaintop.

Now, the movie I did enjoy today.

"Defiance," another in the recent trend over the past decade of Holocaust-related movies. The story is very good and very heart wrenching at times. It is based on actual events in Nazi-controlled Poland. The four Bielski brothers lead a group of Jewish refugees to avoid the Nazis and those working for SS. Despite the constant stream of WWII era films, this new story shows how a band of refugees refused to live like the animals the Nazis treated them as, and they tried to live as a free people. The title of the movie, as well as the book from which the film is based, was taken from the group's philosophy of living in defiance of Hitler.

Recently, I heard there is a new film in the works that will be a re-make of the 1980's classic, "Red Dawn." I am interested to see if the movie will be updated to where the American "Wolverines," who fought off the Cubans and Russians when they invaded the United States, fight a similar foe. Depending on the director's backbone, I would like to speculate that the remake will possibly be based in a post-9/11 world with post-9/11 combatants, but Hollywood shudders to acknowledge that the people who hate us and want to kill us just happen to be Arab Muslims. So that remains to be seen. Release date is set for September of 2010, so it will be very interesting if the movie contains Bin Laden associates or not, given the proximity of the date to a very painful date.

However, getting back to point. What is it?, you might ask. "Lions for Lambs" has no bearing on the rest of this blog, I just felt it necessary to point out and appreciate the rare movie that does not put our troops in extremely poor light. The point I am working toward is this. How would the American press, who, by and large, excitedly report any bad news involving the war on terror and the casualties our troops suffer, report the members of the Bielski group, or the Wolverines, today?

Picture Chris Matthews, who readily admitted on national television that Barack Obama gives him tingly feelings up and down his legs, or Keith Olbermann, or Katie Couric, or any of a million other television personalities, I mean TV 'journalists', reporting on the activites of the Bielskis or the Wolverines.

Picture it. Would it be fair? Would it be supportive? I know the answer. The Bielskis and the Wolverines would be portrayed as the problems, the instigators. The Nazis or the Cubans would be put on a pedestal and martyred in the media. The Bielskis and the Wolverines would be openly called terrorists. Media outlets would openly attack any credibility and publicly air all dirty laundry that any person associated with the groups would have. Bloggers for prominent publications would make inferences and outright accusations of indecency and immoral behavior amongst the two gender-mixed groups. They would be talked about as though they were the filth of the Earth. Stories of respect and memoriam would run to honor the fallen Nazi or Cuban/Russian soldiers killed by the groups, meanwhile the casualties suffered by the Bielskis or Wolverines would be talked with an air of "serves 'em right."

Democratic Senators would go on every 'news' show and talk to every print 'journalist' to decry the "antagonistic antics" of the Bielskis or the Wolverines. Those same senators, along with many in the left wing media, would plead with these people to surrender so that peace talks could begin.

Tell me I am wrong. Go ahead. But, before you do, remember this: I am talking about the same senators and media that scowl at Israel for trying to defend itself from Iranian or Palestinian annihilation. These are the same people that find every chance they can to degrade and insult our men and women in the Armed Forces. You think they would do anything less to a group of innocent people defending themselves in the same situations the Bielskis or the Wolverines faced?

With the constant "Let's talk because I am sorry," foreign policy of Barack Obama, Red Dawn could very well become a story based on actual events. How will we treat those fighting when America's ever growing weakness is exploited and the fight is brought home? Will we duck our heads in the sand and ignore it? Will we cower and kowtow to the guns and threats? Or would we fight, and actually put ourselves on the line for others?

Liberalism at its Worst

Dick Durbin is a slime...and is the a-typical liberal.

His comparisons of our men and women to the evils of Stalinist Soviet troops and Hitler's Nazis is despicable, hurtful, cruel, and unfair. Our troops are NOTHING like the Nazis and Soviets. There are not mass graves of prisoners being filled. There are not massive numbers of casualties once a foreign combatant is apprehended.

Yet, liberals get away with attacking our troops this way because they are allowed to attack the President with reckless abandon. What better way to attack a war time president than to attack the men and women who are serving him?

"Our troops at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are running the facilities like a Soviet gulag. Their mistreatment of the prisoners is like the Nazis. But, I support and love and am proud of our military."

How does that work? In essence, this is what Durbin and the liberal left is purporting. How can you accuse someone, FALSELY ACCUSE, that is, of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and in the next breath talk about how supportive and proud you are of them.

Durbin's comments were cruel, insensitive, and gave the enemy exactly what they want: another soundbite from a prominent American leader that supports the terrorist agenda. Yet, the alphabet channels will not call Durbin to the mat for this. Instead, we see a parade of liberals who refuse to call him out and speak out against the attacks on President Bush and our troops.

Thank God for Mayor Richard M. Daley in Chicago. He is one democrat who has his own thought processes. Instead of taking the kool aide and going along with the program, Daley has stepped up and demanded Durbin to right his wrong.

Durbin, instead, gave a bogus apology in which he defended his comments. If you are truly sorry, there is no need to defend the comments for which you are sorry. Instead, Durbin only says, "I'm sorry if I offended you," quoting loosely, and does not say he is sorry for what he said. He is sorry people did not get his message clearly and were hurt by it.

I am all for differing ideas, differing thoughts, and differing beliefs. I think that is the beauty of America. If you disagree with an ideal, policy, practice, or plan, fine! Cool! Great! Let's hear WHY and let's hear an alternative??

Nope, not happening with the left. They whine, complain, and obstruct. They offer nothing but obstruction and impedence. They attack every idea and plan...every person and suggestion and every proposed solution. Meanwhile, they offer no alternatives. They offer nothing but whining and complaining. Its easy to not be wrong and to be on the correct side when you don't pick a side and don't stick to a moral and ethical code.

Party Of Obstruction

Well, gee, I thought the caped crusaders led by McCain and company settled all this with their "Compromise" with the democrats. I thought that the democrats and republicans eased tensions with the Magnificent Seven. I thought we could get things moving...

NOT!!

Instead, McCain and company sold out their party to the enemy. They are the enemy because the Republicans gave an inch, and now they are forcing that inch to be closer to a mile. Thank you McCain and Co. for selling out your party and in essence, taking away the momentum and power that the Republicans earned as a result of the past two elections.

Now, President Bush has to do one of two things. Either wait until Congress recesses for the summer and give Bolton the nomination to the UN at that point (which democrats and the liberal media are salivating for so they can once again try to paint a LEADER as a rogue president trying to force his agenda on the US and world). OR...President Bush must find a "suitable" nomination for the US ambassador to the UN. (I am guessing Jon Stewart or Michael Moore would be suitable by these liberals' standards.)

I would give the democrats some benefit of doubt if they would simply explain WHY they are being so obstructionist. I know why....but I want to hear legit excuses instead of "we don't know enough about him" or "he just isn't right." Come on. Seriously.

Bolton, like the many judicial nominees that the obstructionists filibustered and blocked from their rightful appointments, has only one fault...one reason for being held up in congress. That reason: they were nominated by George Bush.

It is the goal, pledge, solemn vow of the liberals in congress to drag their feet and slow progress as much as possible for the next four years. They want things to move so slowly Bush will not complete his agenda. They think that soundbites played over and over about a rogue president with a conservative agenda that will destroy America will back them up in their quest to halt the progress of the country.

The problem is, as far as liberals are concerned, the majority of voters in the United States aren't as dumb and dependant on the liberals in power as they'd like. The people who vote are clear thinking and actually think for themselves and do not let Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, Dan Blather, or the like determine their thoughts, feelings, and voting preference.

Unfortunately, it is still 18 months until we see the effects of the 2006 mid-terms. However, I do think there will be a lot of changes in that election. Incumbent seats may be lost on both sides. I think the Magnificent Seven may see some members sent home...and I think, overall, the Republicans will pick up more seats and run the Howard Deans and the like out of Washington.

However, we must remain on our toes. Hillary has been fairly quiet and out of a lot of the picture lately. Dean may be a planned patsy for the democrats....send Dean, Richard Durbin and the other loud mouths who are berating Bush, the war, and our troops....send them all out to get the soundbites so when Hillary runs, she'll end up looking like a moderate. Mark my words. She and the democrats are painting a portrait in which she will be looked at as moderate. God help us if people buy that story.