Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Former CNN Wage Slave Turned AICN Spy Peter Gibbons gives it up for Redford's LIONS FOR LAMBS!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... I've been looking forward to LIONS FOR LAMBS ever since I read the fantastic script back about 9 months ago - and before that when I heard it was the first film greenlit by the Cruise led United Artist - and at the first mention of Redford's name. Capone recently sat down with Redford and I can't wait for that interview to come in, Al was quite fond of the chat he had - and I'm quite jealous. Redford is quite a person to share words with. Anyway - Peter Gibbons is here with a look at the film - fresh off of leaving CNN after 10 years. Here ya go...

Hey there, I've written a couple reviews for you guys in the past... but it's been a while. Yesterday I quit my job with CNN after 10 years, so I'm in a very good mood. I'll mention a nasty little secret about the once-proud network later in this review, since it's applicable to the film. And since I just got hypnotized and quit my job, I guess you can call me Peter Gibbons. I just got out of a screening for Robert Redford's new movie - Lions for Lambs - here in Atlanta. Michael Pena was on hand and took questions for half an hour after the film. I'll get to that in a minute. Some of you just want to know if it's good or not. Yes, it's good. Movie of the year good? I don't know... but it makes you think, so if thinking pisses you off, go see something with Dane Cook. If you like to think and care about the future of the world, see it. Then, after you see it, take a break from watching movies and read "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler, do a Google search for Operation: Northwoods, or read a few sections from the Patriot Acts, which make "The Shining" seem like a children's book. You may now give me the finger for preaching, and continue... First off, this is a political film and I have strong political views, so you can either deal with that or just stop reading. If you've seen the trailers for this film, you know it's loaded with politically-charged lines like Tom Cruise spouting "Do you want to win the war on terror!? Yes or no?" (to which I always want to shout "When will terror be defeated and how much will it cost?") and Robert Redford saying "They bank on your apathy! They plan strategies around it!" So if you're looking for a bland and neutral film, look elsewhere. The film is divided into three very distinct story lines, all of which take place concurrently, over the length of about an hour: one is basically an extended discussion between Redford's political science professor and his promising, yet apathetic student (I was a political science major, so this connected with me pretty quickly). Another story line is an interview between Cruise's pro-war, right wing senator and Streep's reporter (you'll get a chuckle from the photoshopped portraits on his office wall of Cruise with "W" and the other criminals, er... officials in the Bush Administration, like Condi & Cheney). The third story line includes the aforementioned Michael Pena - a soldier who is thrust into a bad situation in Afghanistan with his buddy Derek Luke. This actually ties in with Redford's character, as the two buddies turn out to be his former students. This is the weakest segment in my opinion, as it mostly consists of the classic war movie situation where the good guys bond together against all odds. It has plenty of shocking explosions and gunfire, and I have to admit liking Pena & Luke here, but all in all the other two segments are filled with excellent dialog and are thus infinitely more interesting. Streep is perfect as usual as an aging reporter with experience and a conscience. Cruise is Cruise... which is just about perfect for this role. He is the Cruise that his haters love to hate. Here, he plays a warmongering, ambitious senator who invites Streep in for an exclusive story about the "new strategy" being implemented in the Middle East (for those of you who've been playing World of Warcraft for the past several years, the Middle East is where people have been getting slaughtered since the dawn of man... and lately, thanks to our U.S. tax dollars). The "new strategy" he's talking about is the botched mission involving Pena & Luke, so I guess these all intertwine... but it's done fairly well... unlike in Crash, in which the coincidences were absurd. That's all I have to say about plot points. I was actually pretty surprised at the depth of the arguments being put forth and the pointed nature of the questions being asked by Streep, because it's pretty tough in this day and age to get a major studio to put out a film that has the balls to point out how fucked up our country is and how corrupt our leaders have become. Since Redford directed, you can bet your ass the words his character is speaking come from his gut. His student has an attitude that I'd expect to see in AICN talkbacks... except what he says, while immature and naive, is mostly intelligent. These two head-to-head segments of the film are basically a forum to have a political debate on the movie screen... and thankfully, they're pretty interesting. When Streep asked some damn good questions, like "Why did we attack a country that didn't attack us?" you could see people in the audience nodding and hear them saying "mm-hmm." All the wannabe neocons out there will no doubt be saying "THEY attacked us on 9/11," but actually none of the terrorists were from Iraq, and most were from Saudi Arabia. Oh, and Saddam hated Al Qaeda. Hmm.... [Sorry, I had to launch a preemptive strike at talkbackers... I'm sure they can at least understand the inherent genius and morality of that strategy.] All the main actors were engaging... even the kid, who I'd never seen before. The military segment was more unoriginal. I get pretty tired of seeing the portrayal of our military as always being well-intentioned, yet misguided. I understand it, because if Redford tried to insinuate that the U.S. military was doing bad things on purpose... or that the military-industrial complex is actually motivated to continue engaging in wars, because its profits skyrocket when we're at war... then he'd be branded as "unpatriotic" and all the good Americans who support the war would have to burn their copies of "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid" while buying slapping "Support our troops" stickers on their SUV's. But the Taliban in this film are a faceless enemy that is literally never seen, except when they're getting shot. They're just the baddies coming to kill our stranded heroes. That said, Redford was pretty dead-on with his assessment of the lapdog media... and he took some nice potshots at NILF's (if you don't know what a NILF is, watch the Daily Show report about it on youtube). I worked for CNN for 10 years, and there's a line in there by Streep's character about how her network was bought by a giant corporation in a merger back in 1991, and how the focus of the organization shifted from "reporting news" to "selling advertising time." Well, I attended a meeting at CNN earlier this year in which the president of the entire news division actually said, while boasting about their steady increase in profits over the past several years, that " Good journalism is good business." Think about that. I was so stunned that I actually wrote it down. Redford illustrates the media's complicity in this mess with striking clarity. The big mistake to make from watching the trailer to this film would be to think "Wow, this is a liberal, anti-war film," and start throwing your stuffed elephants and donkeys at each other. The ending is deliberately left open-ended... and is not at all preachy. Actually, it ends so abruptly that one of the first people to ask Michael Pena a question wanted to know why the hell it ended the way it did. His answer was that they didn't want to be preachy. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to ask him why Paul Haggis didn't take that advice while making Crash. Pena was cool, but several dumbasses asked him lame questions about acting (I kept looking around for James Lipton). He was asked a few political questions, like did the cast ever have debates while munching on shrimp cocktail about the validity of the "War on Terror" or why so many Hollywood actors are supporting Hillary Clinton when she's voted for the war, too... but he danced around those and made jokes about how he's been able to have success in spite of not looking like a "Mexican Brad Pitt." That was actually pretty funny, because I tried to picture what such a man would look like. Anyway, I really liked Redford in the film, and I think Streep gave my favorite performance. I wish Redford had taken things further... I could really sense that he wanted to... but this is about as much as the average apathetic, uninformed, public school indoctrinated, celebrity culture infatuated, reality TV watching public can handle at this point. The film definitely isn't an endorsement of Hillary or the Democratic party... it's more of an indictment of our whole society and a call for action and personal responsibility. I have to go to bed, so I'll leave you with a quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the decision." Benjamin Franklin
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 16, 2007, 10:59 p.m. CST

    The Lions of the Lambs?

    by TheNorthlander

    Meh. Hannibal sucks.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 10:59 p.m. CST

    That's one of the best-written reviews I've seen on the site.

    by mefrog

    Nicely done. I'm lookng forward to this film.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:04 p.m. CST


    by CherryValance

    I thought that was pretty condescending. As far as the movie goes, I intend to see it.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST


    by TheDohDoh

    The trailer for this movie is so boring. I wondered why they showed people arguing around desks and now I get it: that's the entire film. This flick is going to flop hard. I'm glad that it's anti-the American occupation of Iraq, but I really wish someone would nail this fucking baby home like Kubrick did with Strangelove. We haven't gotten that great Afganistan/Iraq war movie yet. BY THE WAY, IF YOU REMAIN PRO-WAR AND PRO-BUSH/CHENEY YOU DESERVE TO BE FUCKING SHOT.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by Holodigm

    what a shit review. i don't care who you work for, i want to read a review, not a political platform. newsflash peter gibbons, admitting that you know you're preaching doesn't make it okay, especially when you knock haggis for doing the same thing. and to be clear, i'm not a haggis-lover or a liberal-hater. i'm just anti-shit.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Re: the review

    by TheNorthlander

    Sounds like a good watch. I'll have a look when it crosses the atlantic.<br> <br> So will we see Cruise make his patented "Tom Cruise Double Finger Point TM" gesture in this movie?

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Trailer was preachy and bored me.

    by Bungion Boy

    But there are very talented people involved. I'm really hoping that this is just a bad trailer and that the film will be surprisingly great. I want to love Redford, Streep, and yes, even Cruise.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:11 p.m. CST

    an indictment of our whole society and a call for action

    by Midget_Mac

    no thanks.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:14 p.m. CST


    by TheDohDoh

    Fuck the president and Cheney and Rice. I am totally glad that Lions for Lambs is another war movie to throw in their faces.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I still don't know what a NILF is. CAre to explain please?

    by GQtaste

    And Redford is a personal hero of mine. When he came out w/ The Natural playing Roy Hobs. Man, they just don't make them like that anymore. And how bout the line before the big game. Nothing like a farm. With the chickens, etc. And Grimsley says, well I don't know nothing about farms but you[re the best damn hitter i've ever seen! etc etc.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Peter Gibbons worked at Initech.

    by Det. John Kimble

    The Bobs told me.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Left Wing Conspirators at AICN

    by Wile_E_Mac

    I love how I can post a random comment like "my spoon is too big" and it gets deleted by the moderator, and yet "f bush" and "bush should be hung" will remain. It makes me sick to be preached to during a MOVIE review. Get off your high horse and talk cinema, folks. I don't particularly care what you believe, I care whether the film was decent or not.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:30 p.m. CST

    Excellent Review. Thanks the movie looks good

    by Proman1984

    Could be an OScar contender.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:32 p.m. CST

    You know what, fuck you Peter Gibbons

    by ImFixingtoDie

    I lost interest after about the sixth expression of disdain for all of us readers. I just stopped reading. Which is good since during my scrolling I noticed how fucking long this was. Maybe go fuck yourself. Oh and by the way Peter, I'VE BEEN CHEATING ON YOU!

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:32 p.m. CST

    Lefty Talkbackers Urging Violence


    "BY THE WAY, IF YOU REMAIN PRO-WAR AND PRO-BUSH/CHENEY YOU DESERVE TO BE FUCKING SHOT." Love it. That is so sweet. If someone disagrees with you on a political issue, or about a particular politician, they should be pumped full of hot lead and their spouse should be widowed (or widowered) and their childrens orphans. That awesome. Gotta love the sweethearts on the left.<br><br>I already find Meryl Streep's character unwatchably tedious, just from the trailer. I think I'll skip this piece of utterly predictable political pandering (and utterly predictable performances from actors largely playing themselves).

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Peter Gibbons, sure the Talkbacks can get pretty ugly but ...

    by BringingSexyBack

    when it comes to political discourse, a lot of great debates have raged here. We're all childish when it comes to torture porn and superhero casting, but we're aware of the real world (at least many of us are) and how devastatingly painful war truly is. I, for one, applaud your review and especially your opinion. I think your opinion SHOULD inform your perspective on the movie, and you sold me on it. I'm definitely gonna catch this one.<p> It's too bad you're no longer at CNN. The network could use a guy like you, fighting to keep it balanced.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Wile E_Mac ... Peter IS talking cinema. It's a political movie

    by BringingSexyBack

    and he can't filter out his political perspective on the film.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:38 p.m. CST

    So if you're looking for a bland and neutral film . . .


    Look elsewhere. This film is a tedious, preachy polemic with boringly predictable performances and even more boringly predictable politics.<br><br>At least Southland Tales has the balls to get freaky. This kind of re-cycled talking points just doesn't do it for me (and, for the record, I am a neocon piece of shit). If it does it for you . . . then you really need to raise your standards.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:39 p.m. CST

    Fighting to keep it balanced?

    by Wile_E_Mac

    Brilliant. So a self-aware liberal who spouts anti-Administration rhetoric is EXACTLY what you want providing your "balanced" news? Good thing I expect no less from such a reputable source as CNN...

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST

    One Part of The Film . . .


    Is an extended discussion between Redford's political science professor and his promising, yet apathetic student? Man, I can't wait to sign up for this. It's like All The President's Men. Only Redford is really old, there's is no Dustin Hoffman, and radical-chic politics hadn't already been done five thousand times in cinema. Oh, and stuff actually happened in All the President's Men. The thing that is sometimes referred to in motion pictures as "a plot".

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Cruise's character is the embodiment of all conservatives

    by George Newman

    Just kidding. He looks like a South Park caricature of a caricature, except Redford is treating it seriously.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:43 p.m. CST

    Tom Cruise is the Embodiment of All Conservatives


    In more ways that one. Just ask Larry Craig. Ta-tap-tap!

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:43 p.m. CST

    test <p> test

    by George Newman


  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:45 p.m. CST

    Politics in Entertainment

    by Tacoloft

    Who is the DOUCHEBAG that ultimately said that in order for entertainment to be entertainment or Art to be Art it has to be politically charged? I am SO SICK of politics barraging my TV, movie theaters, music, and art. I want to see logic without politics, I want to see humor without politics, I want to see talkbacks without politics. It doesn’t surprise me that TheDohDoh has responded like a retard-because he has obviously listened to the Left wing, Progresso soup bull crap and is regurgitating the hate he has been fed. Like a dog barfing up it’s own feces. Why don’t was all agree to disagree and make some quality movies instead pointing the f*cking finger at all of the worlds supposed problems and the supposed leaders that have allegedly brought them about. Do we as citizens really have all of the answers? We are all receivers of bullshit non-proven information that we are already biased to listen to so we can prove a point—that the other side is wrong?! Our real concern should be why we are excluding / executing each other over political views that in the long scheme of things are each others right to have. This is how a nation dies—from within. Disparaging your neighbor because of his race, beliefs, AND political views. Lets join in making America great again. Remember United we stand-divided we fall. I say screw politics—get it out of my entertainment and leave it in political campaigns and the voting booth. Oh, and regards to Lions for Lambs—Hallef*ckingluiah!!! Another political full of bull crap movie to make Hollywood blame their loss on box office profits on another videogame or whatever else they can use as an excuse for their lame-ass political evangelizing of America. Screw You Hollywood!

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:45 p.m. CST

    There isn't actually a whole lot of review in this review...

    by SamLowry27

    It's well written, yes, but where is the review? It sort of glosses over the plot without actually delving into why it's good or bad. The reviewer is just focusing on the politics involved without mentioning any of the technical aspects of the film. I wasn't even sold on the fact this person even saw the final film. I could have pieced together this review myself, come on.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Balanced and Objective News . . .


    Is the news that adequate conforms to our pre-conceived ideas, beliefs, and ideology. We call that news "balanced". Media bias is when the media doesn't do what we think it should, or spin the story the way we would, if we were doing it. <br><Br>The only way to even attempt unbiased news reporting would be to assume unavoidable bias at the outset, and have who the reporter voted for and what causes they support attached to every story. And even then . . .

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Political Film vs. Political Perspective

    by Wile_E_Mac

    Sure you can separate the two. I can tell you that I actually enjoy "The American President" (I'm straight, I swear) because it is an entertaining, enjoyable film. Do I agree with the political message? Oh hellz no, Rob Reiner (sp?) is yet another self-absorbed pompous director who thinks he knows what is best for America and proceeds to shove it down your throat with the whole "card carrying member of the ALCU" speech at the end. Eff that. But I can still say it is an ENTERTAINING piece of film.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Wile E Mac

    by BringingSexyBack

    Considering how the networks have given the Bush Administration a free pass over this illegal war, I'd say Peter Gibbons' counterpoint is indeed a point of balance. <p> I don't think you understand the role of the media in a democracy. It is to scrutinize, not to support.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:51 p.m. CST

    "Good journalism is good business."


    The reviewer seems to think that's a bad thing. So, he's advocating bad journalism, rather than good journalism? Or some mythical level of good (i.e., politically-aligned-with-his-opinions) reporting that would be unable to sell advertising because nobody watched it, but it would be "good journalism". Even though it made no money and had no audience.<br><br> Bit of the naif, for someone who worked at CNN for 10 years.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Redford sets up the pieces just so he can knock them down <p>and

    by George Newman

    This film will not have a true political discussion because it is a PRETEND argument. The opponent was never really there to contribute.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:53 p.m. CST

    What's with the WoW jab?

    by Bob of the Shire

    Spouting "gamers are dumb hur hur" says more about him than anything else in the review.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:55 p.m. CST

    "Infinitely More Interesting"


    ". . . but all in all the other two segments are filled with excellent dialog and are thus infinitely more interesting" . . . because, naturally, war heroes are boring and effete liberals snobs vociferously explicating their disdain for the common man while simultaneously patting themselves on the back and indulging in speculative conspiracy mumbo-jumbo is fascinating! <br><Br>Can something actually be "infinitely more"? Wouldn't it just be "infinitely interesting"? I mean, I don't know, I'm not smart like people who have worked for CNN.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Agreeing to Disagree is totally overrated

    by Wile_E_Mac

    1. Free pass? You're right, I never EVER hear the media scrutinizing this administration (as it rightfully should) over the strategy of our ongoing war. It never comes up. 2. So a counterpoint to a ... oh forget it. It's not even worth my time. I'm not asking for a supportive media, I'm asking for the truth, which not a single freaking media outlet is willing or capable of providing because of their preconceived notions of right and wrong. "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts." If only...

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST

    I can win a pretend argument with myself any day

    by George Newman

    do you ever daydream about how a conversation could have gone, how cool you would have been, how you could have beaten that guy up, etc. ? <p>Well that is what this film is, the pretending, the acting out of a discussion the filmmakers dream of having and winning

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:56 p.m. CST

    I agree with Peter Gibbons ... journalism should not be influenc

    by BringingSexyBack

    I'm reminded of The Insider, the true story of how CBS killed the 60 Minutes segment on Jeffrey Wigand because of a potential conflict of interest in a proposed merger. That was a great movie, of equal interest to Lefties and Righties.

  • Oct. 16, 2007, 11:59 p.m. CST

    A Major Studio Producing a Liberal Movie


    "Because it's pretty tough in this day and age to get a major studio to put out a film that has the balls to point out how fucked up our country is and how corrupt our leaders have become" -- I'm sorry, Mr. Gibbons, do you actually watch Hollywood movies? Start in the late sixties and work your way, you'll find plenty of movies about "how fucked up our country is". Have you seen The Deerhunter? Apoclypse Now? Platoon? Wallstreet? Anything by Spike Lee? Or Oliver Stone? How about Lady in the Water? Not that it was about anything, but I was just wondering if anybody else sat through the whole thing. My goodness! It felt like what I suspecting watching this polemical bit of pandering must feel like.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:04 a.m. CST

    The Attiude You'd Expect to See in AICN Talkbacks . . .


    Is that talkbackers will call you one some of your bullshit. Then someone will call them on it, as these other TBers see it, and so on. It's a beautiful thing. Jackass.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:07 a.m. CST

    How To Piss Off A Liberal

    by Wile_E_Mac

    Buy a gun with your tax refund.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:11 a.m. CST

    Rather Go Hunting with Dick Cheney

    by Wile_E_Mac

    Than driving with Ted Kennedy.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Could Mr. Gibbons Possibly Be More Dim ?


    "All the wannabe neocons out there will no doubt be saying "THEY attacked us on 9/11" . . . come on, at least get the justification right. Neocons aren't saying that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Neocons are saying on the surface that there were maybe some weapons of mass destruction and anyway Saddam Hussein was bad, and underneath they are generally very "manifest destiny", that America has an obligation to democratize the world and so on.<br><br> Why'd we attack a country that didn't attack us? It's a pre-emptive war! By defintion, you're attacking a country that didn't attack you, but you think might or might support terrorists or anyway he tried to kill my daddy! <br><br>But Mr. Gibbons, there aren't any neocons out there saying that Hussein was behind 9/11. Jeeze! No wonder you enjoyed this tripe.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:22 a.m. CST

    I Get Tried of Positive Portrayls of our Military


    "I get pretty tired of seeing the portrayal of our military as always being well-intentioned, yet misguided." But I don't get tired of living in a democracy, enjoying freedom of speech, not getting blown-up at the mall, not being forced to speak an incomprensible pidgin blend of Japanese and German as I toil in the mines.<br><br>Sure, I enjoy all the fruits of living in a representative republic and a capitalist systems, but I get tired of all those tedious soldiers who put their lives on the line and then die to protect my right to yell at the Starbucks barista for having put too much milk in my latte. Is it too much to ask that films portray the military mainly as raping children and killing babies? And me, as a rock-jawed intellectual solemnly stabbing the American soldier in the back, while simultaneously patting myself on mine for being not just intellectually superior but morally superior to the men and women who give their lives for my freedom. You know why I get tired of positive portrayls of the people who have spilled their blood in order that I enjoy my spoiled lifestyle where I can sit around and geek out over movies? Because I'm a shallow fucking jackass, that's why.<br><Br> Whew. And that, my friends, is method acting.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST


    by Odeonandthekid

    Everyone in the cast looks like they're on heavy dose, that's all i was thinking while watching the trailer.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:28 a.m. CST


    by Odeonandthekid

    Everyone in the cast looks like they're on heavy dose, that's all i was thinking while watching the trailer.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:51 a.m. CST

    my NILF of choice:

    by chromedome

    Lara Logan

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:59 a.m. CST

    Harry, Mori, Quint, Merrick, Herc, WHOEVER...

    by Shermdawg about taking care of that problem over in the McCoy talkback? Thanks.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Politics aside

    by PurityOfEssence

    Why continually insult the people who bother to read your review?

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:38 a.m. CST

    This looks like a sanctimonious piece of shit.

    by Barry Egan

    I can't wait to have Redford lecture me.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:48 a.m. CST


    by Leafy McPlantsalot

    Dude, you can not be so completely one sided in everything you say and then bash people for being completely one sided only on the opposite side. Jeez. As for a review, that sucked. I have no idea if I want to see this movie or not. I don't really love Redford but AMC has been playing The Natural on repeat the last few days and i gotta say, you can't help but get behind a dude who carves a magic super bat out of a tree hit by lightning. Just saying.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:51 a.m. CST

    "Dead Man Walking" was a great political film.

    by Barry Egan

    It was great because Tim Robbins never lectured the audience how they should feel about the death penalty. He told you a story and then gave the audience credit for being smart enough to sort the rest out for ourselves. I hope all these preachy Iraq movies tank at the boxoffice. Valley of Elah is doa.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 2:19 a.m. CST

    F you, chromedome

    by Thick McRunFast

    Lara Logan is a gutsy war reporter who dares to go where none of the Fox blondes would dare to go. Whether or not you'd like to fuck her (hey, I would, too) doesn't mean she should be lumped in with the rest of the NILF herd. Hey - "NILF herder"! :P

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 2:33 a.m. CST

    The correct phrasing is "Lions led by Donkies"... not this rippe

    by wolvenom

    Oh no but its totally different right? Its Lions (soldiers)... and lambs (the public?) right?!?! not donkies (the politicians).... HOW TRULY FUCKING ORIGINAL HOLLYWOOD! *COUGH* RIP OFF *COUGH*... seriously... you want to call your movie 'lions led by donkies' then call it fucking 'lions led by donkies'... other than that this looks like tried and true hollywood drivel.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 2:38 a.m. CST

    The guy who coined 'Lions led by Donkeys' should sue their asses

    by wolvenom

    blatant plagerism

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:08 a.m. CST

    "You can bet your ass the words his character is speaking come f

    by HostileOrganismX

    Wait, what? And didn't AICN hero Aaron Sorkin give this stuff away for free on "West Wing?" With betters actors, too. I guess I'm just tired of the same take on the material: "Valley of Elah," "Home of the Brave," "Grace Is Gone," "Redacted," "Stop-Loss," "The Situation," "Tiger and the Snow," "Over There" and of course, Michael Bay's "Transformers."

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:10 a.m. CST

    ... come from his gut"

    by HostileOrganismX

    Just saying.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Yeah this review...

    by gorydon

    ...was written by someone who's unemployed and thinks they're better than everyone else...Looks like a decent flick though. Vote Ron Paul.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:31 a.m. CST

    Mr Spork

    by kwisatzhaderach

    That's a fact. Bush ruined the worldwide reputation of the US. Way to go asshole.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:57 a.m. CST

    "it's more of an indictment of our whole society"

    by newc0253

    oh, so nothing sweeping then?<p> when a review starts off with a list of suggested reading, it's too easy to dismiss it as something written by some sophomoric poli-sci major. unfortunately, the rest of the review didn't do anything to shake this first impression.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 4:21 a.m. CST

    I'm pretty much a

    by ChorleyFM

    lefty when it comes to politics, however the trailer made the film look like a bland and boring polemic on the war. It may be that it gets brilliant reviews, but barring the soldiers's story it seems insufficiently cinematic and I don't think I will see it at the theater.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:34 a.m. CST

    I'm a tree-hugging vegetarian liberal, and I want to smack

    by Bronx Cheer

    this monkey Gibbons. Condescend much? Why don't you just come right out and say that anyone who disagrees with you is a moron? Not only was the review poorly written, it was insulting.</p> <p>This is no way to have a discussion. It's a way to start a food fight.</p> <p>To the person who said there are no Neocons saying Saddam was behind 9/11, maybe not anymore, but there sure were before the curtain fell exposing the lies. It's all on video and in print. But now they're saying, Gotta finish the job, have to defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq (even though they weren't there until we invaded), Support the Troops (by marching them back for a fifth tour), blah blah blah.</p> <p>The only proper way to start solving our problems is regime change--in the USA. Impeach Bush, Cheney, Rice, and prosecute them and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and others for treason and war crimes. But since the new Congress is full of cowards, we're stuck with the leadership we have. And since most of the citizens of this country only become outraged when someone cuts off their cable TV, you can forget about a popular uprising or people power righting our floundering country.</p> <p>And THAT is where we are, in a fascist country that tortures, disappears people, and spies illegally on its own citizens.</p>

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Hey Gibbons...

    by DoctorWho?

    Why are you such a condescending little prick?

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:38 a.m. CST

    Positive portrayals of our military

    by chains

    Hey kevinwillis... thanks for the standard "You're enjoying the freedoms they fight and die for" speech. Well, as anyone with a brain knows, the fact that we're currently a free country doesn't mean we'll always be one. In fact, if you were to take the time to read the Military Commissions Act, you'd see that we're one "national emergency" away from Bush declaring martial law. The fact that many of our troops are indeed heroes doesn't mean that some of them are sick, twisted criminals who love to kill... or that military leaders, like the sick members of the Chief of Staff who approved Operation Northwoods (which called for a false-flag attack on the U.S. to provoke war with Cuba) in the 60's, don't give a shit about liberty... just power. Roll over and blindly support your government, and you'll end up in a dictatorship in no time. But yeah, everyone who calls the government on its lies is a "whiny liberal." What a joke...

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Chains, you have your finger in it. We're not a free country.

    by Bronx Cheer

    Not just the MCA of 2006, but that was enough. Once habeas corpus was suspended for whoever they deem to be an unlawful military combatant, that means any and all of us have lost our basic right to face our accusers, to a fair trial. Our freedoms are disappearing. Liberty has been hijacked and sold off to the highest bidder.</p> <p>So, since this is no longer a country of laws, what is it that those soldiers are dying for? Profits. Not liberty, not democracy. Profits. Share holders. It's not just power; money is a huge part of this war on terror. Ask Halliburton and Blackwater. Privately contracted soldiers? I thought we had an all-volunteer military? So if there are ten of thousands of mercenaries fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, how does our leadership get away with saying we have an all-volunteer military? There are goon squads paid for by US taxpayers running amok and yet we still have a volunteer military, and no need for a draft. It's s scam. And the Constitution has been shredded in the process.</p> <p>Free country? Not his one.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Great review

    by Bobo_Vision

    Hope Peter sends in more reviews.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:08 a.m. CST

    " people in the audience nodding and hear them

    by TheBloop

    Wow there is a shocker, considering this a Robert Redford film about the War of Terrorism. What kind of audience did this assclown expect to be there? Kind of like going to "The Passion of the Christ" and being impressed with the number of Christians there. "Rendition", "Valley of Elah," "Home of the Brave," "Grace Is Gone," "Redacted," "Stop-Loss," "The Situation," "Tiger and the Snow," "Over There" , wow is been an anvalanche of ant-war on terror films from liberal hollywood. Each one will make about $1.50 at the box office, yet that group will be well represented at the Oscars. So all the little tuxedo wearing limousine liberals can feel great about themselves, even though the ratings get lower and lower. Wonder when "brave hollywood" is ever going to ask the hard question on radical islam? Instead of pulling shit like in Syriania, were they became terrorists just because they were laid of by the EVIL western oil company. What a crock of shit. Here are some books for you to read, if you are really open minded on the subject: Why I Left Jihad: The Root of Terrorism and the Return of Radical Islam by Walid Shoe, Tea with Terrorists by Craig Winn, The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam by Robert Spencer.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:48 a.m. CST

    I liked the review and his opinions

    by messi

    I'm pretty sure the people who didn't are a bunch of fucking cunce who only care about themselves. motherfucking earth 3 and you cunce are the crime society.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Some people missed the memo ...

    by ye olde shiza

    For all you folks calling for our hombre to post a non-political review of a political movie, why are you doing so? How can you ignore the absolute main thrust of a film? <br><br> And KevinWillis ... you're talkback flames are even more ridiculous than what Gibbons was speaking of. There's nothing wrong wanting news to come away from the business side. I've worked at a small town paper, where you couldn't say anything bad about the large advertisers, even if it was the truth, and I'm sure that it grows exponentially. I'm going to guess that you think censorship is bad for the digestion ... <br><br> And writing a balanced news story is easy. It's journalism 101. Learn to remove yourself. Pile in information from all sides, and let the only leanings come from direct quotes. And everything, you'll find, is not inherently "balanced" in a 50/50 degree. For example ... George Bush. His middling 30% approval ratings. Congress is even lower. Anyway ... I don't know where you come from thinking that news should be, first and foremost, a bought and sold commodity. It should be that in the secondary sense, at most. Journalists are supposed to be the hidden checks & balances of our society - it's why they have freedom of the press rights.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Hey PeterGibbons

    by messi

    email me at <p> need your help

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Blackwater are not mercenaries

    by sharki

    1. Mercenaries are soldiers in the pay of a foreign government. Blackwater is an American company and they are paid by Americans. If they were working for the Iraqi government then, the yes they would be mercenaries. 2. Blackwater contractors are not paid to wage war and do not fight along side coalition forces. Blackwaters job is to protect state depratment employees. And they have a perfect track record, they have never lost anyone they were assigned to protect.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Bronx Cheer...

    by chains

    Well, I agree with you on many accounts, except that Congress is full of cowards. Calling them cowards implies that they would like to act, yet are afraid to do so. The truth is that they are supporting the status quo because they benefit from it. They aren't cowards, they're complicit. Until we opt out of this left/right paradigm, and accept the fact that it's really have's vs have not's... we'll be stuck wondering why the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Democrats are not the answer. An informed and engaged citizenry is the answer. The reason we don't have that is because the bad guys set up a school system that purposefully creates a dumbed-down, apathetic populace that cares more about Britney Spears than the fact that our president is a war criminal.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Good review and interesting TB

    by Col. Tigh-Fighter


  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:18 a.m. CST


    by chains

    The fact that the reviewer quit his job with CNN doesn't mean he's unemployed, it just means he no longer works for CNN.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:20 a.m. CST

    But yeah, vote Ron Paul

    by chains

    They need to make an ad for Ron Paul that has Princess Leia saying "Help me, Ron Paul. You're our only hope."

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST

    The News Should be a Bought and Sold Commidity


    Ye Old Shiza . . .Yeah, that's what I said. News should be a bought and sold commodity. Apparently, the educational system already is, and yours went to the lowest bidder. Hah! Just kidding, you seem very bright, although entirely incorrect (and reading things I did not say).<br><br>Jeeze, what would the point be of having balanced reporting if people are going to make up what they think the story said, anyway?<br><br> And my TalkBack "flames" . . . no tough words for the guy who says people who disagree with his views should be shot, but because I think the reviewer is a shallow jackass (hey, it's just my opinion!) I'm flaming.<br><Br>No, I am merely critiquing. You stand corrected.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:37 a.m. CST

    bush the man

    by greekopa


  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:38 a.m. CST

    by WhiteyFord

    I agree with chains with what was said in Bronx cheer, except for Bush being a war criminal. I have my own personal reasons for not thinking that way, one has to do with me being a vet of the war on terror. Anyway, as far as the movie goes i will probably watch it, but the review was very condescending to this site's fan base, but also a little ignorant. He talked down to everyone reading that review, and he felt he had the right to just becaue he is more educated than the average reader, which doesn't mean he is always correct.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:41 a.m. CST

    accurate descriptions

    by WhiteyFord was dead on with "the guy who says people who disagree with his views should be shot".

  • yell "where r they hiding" then kick him in the nuts, give him a wet willy, so fun. where can i get an application

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Hussein Responsible for 9/11


    Someone may have been saying it, but it wasn't the Neocons, mainstream conservatives, or mainstream Republicans. What mainstream Republicans were saying was that if Hussein were left in power, he'd likely be responsible for a nuclear-level 9/11 . . . which is not a rational conclusion, given that Saudi Arabia supplied most of the 9/11 terrorists, and we're good friends with them. No serious political pundit on the right and no mainstream Republican said Hussein was materially responsible for 9/11. You want to believe they did, fine--it doesn't make it so. Many have (and continue) to point to interaction between Hussein and Al Queda pre and post 9/11, potential terrorists training camps, etc . . . points which may be debatable, certainly, but are not the same as saying Hussein engineered 9/11.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Hey Peter

    by avstar

    As a CNN wage slave in his ninth year, I say congratulations on getting out.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Can you really fault the reviewer for talking down to talkbacker

    by Bobo_Vision

    Even if he were to write the same review without insulting talkbackers, he would still be called numerous names and insulted by people just because they hold different political views, so he wrote, as he described it, a pre-emptive talkback strike. Saves him the trouble of having to respond in talkback because he already described the people who typically disparage any anti-war films without knowing anything about the movie. <p> As for world of warcraft players, the South Park episode on WoW pretty accurately portrayed them. I've tried using the internet during travels in internet cafes surrounded by WoW players, and it was like Eric Cartman from that episode had been cloned.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Habeas Corpus Suspended for United States Citizens!


    Damn that Abe Lincoln. By 1900, this will be a fascist country led by anti-southern abolitionists. And for what? The "emancipation proclamation"? The south should have been treated as a sovreign nation, and we should all condemn Lincoln's unjust and illegal war!<br><br> I'm just saying. I actually don't support pre-emptive wars for might-could-maybe-happens. But extrapolating the "suspension" of a "right" that military combatants have never enjoyed (rightly or wrongly) in the history to the United States into the end of freedom in America is kind of an alarmist, paranoid stretch. In my opinion. Which I recently had valued at the local opinion assesors office, and was found to be worth exactly two cents.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Chains, There Are Plenty of Movies . . .


    That treat the American military like garbage, or worse than subhuman. More of those in this day and age than that portray them as heroes. So what are you whining about? You're getting what you want, in spades. Whoopee!

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:58 a.m. CST

    all of u complain but how do u protest the goverment, playing xb

    by greekopa

    getting fatter, whinning little bitches, you cant do shit thatn just sit their and take it, americans dont know how to protest maybe u can hire mexicans to do it for u

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:01 a.m. CST

    So the reviewer didn't like Crash

    by Lovecraftfan

    Did we all get that?? Huh Cause I dont think it was clear enough.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Military comments

    by WhiteyFord

    Gibbons wrote about how the film treats the soldiers like good intentioned misguided people. For the troops that are below a Colonel (everyone except Generals) they pretty much are. I spent 8 months in Afghanistan and the truth is, all we thought about was killing who we had to kill, not killing who we shouldnt kill, calling our loved ones consistently, and going home with everything still in tact for you and your buddies. These 19 yr old privates usually don't even have political views, they just do their job.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:28 a.m. CST

    In the Valley of Elah

    by bloodysam

    is well worth seeing in the theater. Regardless of your politics or stance on Paul Haggis, the performance by Tommy Lee Jones makes it a film worth seeing. Performances that good do not come along so often.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Never read such a contempt for the AICN crowd in ONE review

    by SpencerTrilby

    The movie may not be preachy, but god this review was. Well written, with correct syntax and clever construction; I couldn't even challenge the reviewer's agenda as it mirrors mine... but a smart reviewer wouldn't tease what is basically a younger, hippier crowd with such hubris... <p> This contempt for the masses doesn't surprise me at all from a former "journalist" but it has nothing to do with a review, it would be like Old Fart Ebert laughing at us cause we actually PAY our movie tickets... <p> Blasting Crash (which I never saw) or Warcaft (to which I never played) or Bush (never voted for this POS) is really a cheap shot, poor provocation destined to raise hell with gamers or neocons or Haggis fans, but doesn't add anything remotely relevant to - unless further notice - what is supposed to be a MOVIE REVIEW. Give me a Moriarty or Merrick review anytime. Not a jaded insider's cheap sarcasm.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Funny review

    by Darth Busey

    I particularly enjoyed the part where the OP acted incredulous when he found out a TV network was in the business of making money.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    is the U.S. divided beyond reconciliation

    by crashbarbarian

    1) The hate in this talk back is staggering... A true representation of America as a whole? 2) Is it possible that Libs can quit with the stupid argument (Bush lied, illegal war, etc...) and Cons can accept that Bush is not the beacon of truth that they want him to be and that he is a realitivly horrible leader 3) When will politicians on both sides stop pandering to the voters with promises that they can't back up or will bankrupt america while trying to back them up? ei. hilary care, or this war spending

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 11:05 a.m. CST

    Thank God..

    by PokitN

    we have actors and reporters to save our country! Is there anyone smarter than someone who can memorize movie lines, or watch something happen and then tell others what they saw? Seriously you guys deserve a pat on the back, which I'm sure you'll be giving yourself soon.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Branded as "unpatriotic"? yeah good call jack ass.

    by BMacSmith

    if Redford tried to insinuate that the U.S. military was doing bad things on purpose... then he'd be branded as "unpatriotic". no shit shirlock.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 11:20 a.m. CST

    my favorite part in Syriana:

    by BMacSmith

    When the good and noble terrorists attack a tanker full of evil oil execs. Because thats totally realistic. Terrorists never bomb nightclubs or busy marketplaces full of innocent people.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 11:36 a.m. CST


    by Mattyboy122

    Incredibly preachy. Like Paul Haggis preachy. Also, the reason why Redford presumably depicts our soldiers as good kids trying to survive in a shitty situation is because that's usually what they are. I mean, do you think the average soldier wants to go to war to fuel the military industrial complex? That's the most retarded thing I've ever head. They're normally kids who just want to put in their time and get the fuck out of there. Why would they want more war (ie more of a probability of getting killed)? Anyway, this review is poorly written, more of an apologist's review (or at least incredibly defensive review) rather than discussing the film's actual merits.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Good journalism is good business

    by yesiamaplant

    I feel like this guy is looking for some sort of ethical violation in this statement, and I see none. It merely states that if they report the news as they should, their ratings will increase, and their income will as well. The idea that a *gasp* television station shouldn't mention *shock* profits at a *choke* business meeting is absurd. If there was some sort of Snidely Whiplash mustache twirl after they said it, that's something else entirely, but otherwise this guy is making mountains out of molehills. And speaking as someone who has a friend in Iraq, there are soldiers who love being in the shit, and look forward to combat situations. Its a small minority to be sure, but they exist.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST

    If anyone can create an all news television station

    by Quin the Eskimo

    that is not for profit, let me know. It just doesn't work.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Fantastic review. Oh, side note crashbarbarian

    by s00p3rm4n

    Absolutely wonderful review. Note the reviewer pretty much predicted and cauterized the burning stupidity that was sure to come in these Talkbacks. It's been relatively civil, though. I'm excited to see this film, although with the boat of money Redford could float I'm not sure why he'd stop himself from indicting the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower himself rallied against in his farewell speech. Side note to crashbarbarian: how is it a "stupid argument" to question how the sitting leader of the free world duped a scared and gullible nation into an endless nightmare of a civil war, in a country that didn't pose a threat to us? And another sidenote to whoever was defending Blackwater: if I ran this country I'd hire Blackwater to shoot your ass. That's why NO ONE should be able to 'hire' Blackwater. Because they're fucking jock strap cowboys who shoot from the hip, except with assault rifles and Humvees. NO ONE should be able to have a Presidency as strong as Bush has granted himself. NO ONE should benefit from the Patriot Act, the war machine. This is the kicker of this whole shebang: what matters to me isn't just that the people rewriting the system are Republicans, although that is some repugnant shit. What's far worse is that they don't care what happens after they leave - they shoot, walk out of the room, and start racking up their speaker fees for the American Enterprise Institute. I have yet to see that career trajectory portrayed in our cinema. Cheney: The Musical.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST

    by fish tacos

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Re: Good Journalism is Good Business

    by chains

    To all those who scoff at the notion that this statement should be taken seriously, perhaps you should rent a copy of "The Corporation"... a documentary which details how Colin Powell's Monsanto chemical company bullied a local Fox affiliate into killing a story about a deadly additive in the production of milk. The facts in the story were correct, and were not even questioned or debated by the station, but since Monsanto threatened to remove their advertising dollars if it aired, the story never saw the light of day... and millions of people were denied access to information that may have saved their lives. THAT's why journalism shouldn't be driven by the bottom line... because the bottom line is often met at the expense of truth. It's always been this way, the only difference is that in the past 20 years, all of the networks have been combined into five... which means that five people (Murdoch, etc.) get to decide what information you and I receive through the mainstream media. If you're cool with that, then enjoy your dictatorship.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:41 p.m. CST

    Goofy Names to make your opponent look silly

    by 5 by 5

    This is quotes... "These two head-to-head segments of the film are basically a forum to have a political debate on the movie screen... and thankfully, they're pretty interesting. When Streep asked some damn good questions, like "Why did we attack a country that didn't attack us?" you could see people in the audience nodding and hear them saying "mm-hmm." All the wannabe neocons out there will no doubt be saying "THEY attacked us on 9/11," but actually none of the terrorists were from Iraq, and most were from Saudi Arabia. Oh, and Saddam hated Al Qaeda. Hmm...." = equals prop·a·gan·da 1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Recommended docs

    by chains

    If you want to understand why we're in such a mess right now... check out "The Century of Self" (about the father of public relations - Edward Bernays), "The Ground Truth," "The Power of Nightmares," "Iraq for Sale," "The Money Masters," and "America: Freedom to Fascism." There are more, but these should get you started... and most are free at Google Video.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Another Silly Anti War, Anti Bush Film

    by MarkWhittington

    Though actually one can say about Hollywood that it not so much anti war as it is on the other side.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1 p.m. CST

    One Other Thing

    by MarkWhittington

    The silliest part of this "review": "it's pretty tough in this day and age to get a major studio to put out a film that has the balls to point out how fucked up our country is and how corrupt our leaders have become." Actually it would take balls to make a film suggesting that the war on terror is in fact a just war and people who makes movies like this one are confused at best, treasonous at worse.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Saddam was silly

    by 5 by 5

    heh heh, you know, all this could have been avoided is Saddam hadn't invaded another country. Or if Saddam would let the U.N. inspectors do their jobs... Or if Saddam complied with the end of war arrangement made with the coalition forces at the end of the 1st Gulf War. Or if Saddam hadn't shown a penchant for WMD's by using them on civilians in his own country. Seems like a lot of decisions could have been made on Saddam's part that would have let us all avoid this bloody mess we're in now.

  • A turkish prison to be exact

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:11 p.m. CST


    by chains

    That information is all well and good, mr. 5 by 5, but humor me... who is your primary source of information for the "facts" as you've stated? Because if it isn't the U.S. government, I don't know who it is. Then again, maybe all this wouldn't have happened if the U.S. hadn't ARMED Saddam and supported his regime during the 1980's. You see, it's not about right and wrong with our military and leaders... they don't care who's committing genocide on their own people... they only care what serves U.S. interests. And please stop with this "WMD" silliness, because if you're talking about nukes, the only country ever to use them is the U.S. If you're talking about chemical weapons, go find out who's been using white phosphorous in Iraq. (Hint: it's not Al Qaeda)

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Re: Recommended docs

    by SpencerTrilby

    Thanks for the info. I also recommend you "Le monde selon Bush" a French doc (French bashing starting in 3,2,1...) which is absolutely essential IMO if you wanna understand a lil'bit more what's in the neocon's primitive minds. <p> Also, I couldn't find "The Money Masters" on IMDb... Are you sure of the title?

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:20 p.m. CST

    5 by 5: a necessary reminder FYI

    by SpencerTrilby

    CIA's Duelfer Report said "Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War" <p> Why the Bush administration scrapped this report is beyond me.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 1:52 p.m. CST

    In the immortal words of Homer Simpson:

    by Dwide Shrewd

    "Celebrities... is there anything they DON'T know?" Preachy. I hated the trailer, and won't see this film, even though I AGREE with the message behind the preachiness. I just get really sick of these politico-social commentaries by rich celebrities who speak out in front of the cameras, and then go home to Malibu and swim in their money. That does about as much good as people slapping retarded "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on their vehicles. Probably less. Oh, and shitty, condescending review, btw. Hey Peter, watch out for your cornhole, man.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Money Masters

    by chains

    probably not on IMDB, but it's on Google Video. Pretty much a lengthy history lesson of central banking in the U.S. and the birth of the Federal Reserve... about 4 hours long... should be divided into two parts.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Nicely done

    by SeattleBuff

    Thanks for the review. I want to see it (in spite of Cruise. It sounds like he gets to do one of his two emotions--intense! The other is "cocky")

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Not a free country...the gospel of the moonbats

    by TheBloop

    Love how the moonbats go on and on about that, say america a now fascist state, dissent is squashed, blah blah blah...ironic since the very fact they are allowed to say such things freely on the internet, the radio, and film and tv proves they are wrong. Ironic huh? Now go to China, and set up some ant-government web sites and see how that goes.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Thanks a lot, chains!

    by SpencerTrilby

    Gonna check it out ASAP.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Well said Bloop...

    by DoctorWho?

    Dissent has been squashed...and let me list 15 books you can get for free on Google to prove it. Classic

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by messi

    I want to punch you. fucking evil cunt.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:49 p.m. CST

    ??? Cruise is pretty left wing

    by messi

    So I don't get the embodiment of conservatives remarks, unless it's a joke. Born on the fourth of July really did change him, even he has said and he doesn't agree with the war on terror.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:50 p.m. CST


    by messi

    hey dumb cunt. just because there are worse countries out there doesn't mean that people should be complacent and happy with what they are given. Fucking assfuck.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Fuck. You right wing americans are pretty fucked.

    by messi

    Thank god i don't live in your shitty country with you shitty evil cunce.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 4:08 p.m. CST

    I don't agree with Redford's choice to do a anti-war film...

    by gorydon

    But I will fight for his right to premiere it at Sundance.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Bravo Peter Gibbons!!!

    by Ray Gamma

    You partially restored my faith in Americans with your article. (I'm in the UK). I agree with every political and ethical remark you made there. Well done.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 4:52 p.m. CST


    by jdb1972

    Y'know, I thought RM Scaife and his ilk were nuts in the 1990s when they were accusing Clinton of murdering Foster and the like. But, geez, count on lefty extremists to make righty extremists look like amateurs...

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Willis, Lincoln temporarily suspended writ of habeas corpus

    by Bronx Cheer

    The MCA allows the government to designate anyone a combatant and suspend writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln was in the middle of a civil war. The US was tearing itself to pieces. The "global war on terror" is a sham. Terrorism is a matter for law enforcement not the military.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Bush-The Most Un-American President ever

    by darthliquidator

    It will take decades to undo the damage that Bush has wreaked in both the U.S. and the world...eight years of this country being led by a total imbecile whose primary advisory - Cheney - is a draft-dodging coward turned sabre-rattler who loves to send other people's children off to war.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:12 p.m. CST

    TheBloop, just because I can bark in an online forum

    by Bronx Cheer

    doesn't mean out liberties aren't disappearing. Comcast is filtering political emails. Verizon and ATT have been cooperating with the govt's illegal surveillance, and it turns out now that Bush has been eavesdropping illegally since before 9/11. If illegal wiretaps are such an important tool in fighting terrorism, then why the hell did 9/11 happen in the first place?</p> <p>You'll wake up one day, after we attacked Iran, and the govt declares martial law, and realize, Oh shit, this is fucked up. And you know what? That's when the ability to go to places like AICN to bitch about movies will be shut down. </p> For now, this doesn't matter to the administration. But it will. This isn't moonbat talk. This is what happens when democracies fall into authoritarian states.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:14 p.m. CST

    The best thing is that too much of this country

    by Bronx Cheer

    is too stupid or lazy to give a shit. Until their kids are ratting them out to the govt. Oh, it'll happen. They're doing it now.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Bush fans made their bed...

    by ebonic_plague they have to sleep in it, and bitch about how everything is the fault of liberals and gays and the media. Interesting, how the people that can't ever shut up about their supreme devotion to personal responsibility are the same that always want to blame the country's problems on the actions of OTHER people. The people in this country who support these horribly amoral, short-sighted "deciders" have EXACTLY the country and war they deserve. You want to invade Iraq on flimsy BS evidence? Good luck with that, assholes, hope you brought enough kevlar to cover your asses. You broke it, you bought it, now go fucking complain to your echo chamber about how it's not really your fault. And stop sending me the bill.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:44 p.m. CST

    re: Animalstructure

    by ebonic_plague

    You are the human equivalent of a 2007 NY Yankees "We're #1" foam finger. You deserve each and every negative aspect of your daily life, and more. On behalf of all humanity, thanks for making the world suck just a little bit more than it would without you here.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Glad to see that chains is on the ball ...

    by ye olde shiza

    That is all.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:51 p.m. CST

    My favorite part of that shit review...

    by SebastianHaff

    ...Is when this asshole says it's ok for the movie to kinda blow toward the end because Americans are stupid and wouldn't get it anyway. Actually, I take that back. My favorite part is when he rips on people who drive SUV's with 'Support Our Troops' magnets. Why? Because I do.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 5:55 p.m. CST

    More Bush fear-mongering

    by Bronx Cheer

    US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III." "We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's supect atomic program. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Sharki, I stand corrected

    by Bronx Cheer

    But I ask you to consider their "perfect record" in light of the collateral damage they have caused, including the killing of innocent Iraqis.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:38 p.m. CST

    news flash idiots...

    by DoctorWho?

    Bush is out of office in '08. Your moonbat scenarios of world domination,martial law, media control and iron fisted theocracy will vanish into thin air. Kind of a short sighted "reign of terror" if he didnt think to totally disolve the seperation of powers... roll out the tanks and declare himself "supreme ruler". I guess Cheney was asleep at the wheel eh?

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Iran and WWIII

    by chains

    What's funny about all this Iran fearmongering is that the country they're supposedly intending to "wipe off the map" (which is a misquote, by the way) - Israel - already has more than 200 nuclear missiles - courtesy of the U.S. and your tax dollars. Yet, they want us to believe that Iran - a country that, even by the CIA's own estimate, is 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon - is somehow on the verge of starting WWIII. Once you learn the facts, it all becomes incredibly simple, and you can no longer be manipulated by fear. However, a fearful populace is easily manipulated... which is why they must remain painfully ignorant, distracted by entertainment, work and debt.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Bush isn't out of office. That's the problem.

    by Bronx Cheer

    All he needs to do is declare a state of emergency and he wins the unitary executive becomes an imperial presidency. It's not paranoia. Just look at the laws that have been passed, the performance of Congress (lack of), and the lack or outrage on the part of a dulled nation.</p> <p>You can ridicule the left all you want, but the facts are simple and in front of you. Denial is powerful.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:20 p.m. CST

    kevinwillis and others

    by Holy Hell

    You people talk out of your assholes too much. And with righteous arrogance, too. The trailer for this film smacks of standard vaccuous worn-out anti-war rhetoric the more outspoken left-leaning democrats have been spitting up for years. It looks dusty, self-righteous, and obvious to the point of parody. The trailer does. I haven't seen the film, which could offer a much more penetrating and rigorous take on the debate. I don't know; I haven't seen it yet. Nor have most of you, either, especially the vaccuous and pitiful rhetorician-in-training kevinwillis. You sir, are the most diabolical of the vocal. You think you're sensible, honest, smart, and honorable. You seem to be none of these. You blanket your unAmerican, ideological, blatantly polemical UNINFORMED reaction to a film with watch you imagine is effective, swaggery charm. Your arguments lack intelligible premises, you appear illogically smitten with your preposterously polemical conclusions, and your participation in what is sadly considered "discourse" in American culture is hastening its death. DO NOT JUDGE A THING BEFORE YOU HAVE CONVERSED WITH IT. To do so is to disrespect your own intelligence and to diminish whatever fruits should be available for thoughtful debate.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Oh snap.

    by Bronx Cheer

    Holy Hell indeed. By the way, I agree. It looks like stale tripe. When I heard about this while principle photog was on-going, I thought, Jeesh, this will probably help me with my insomnia.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 7:32 p.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    I dont think a nuclear Iran would be such a hot issue if their president wasn't openly and loudly shouting about wiping out a neighboring nation. Maybe it's just me, but that kind of gets my attention. Especially when rooted in a radical ideology. So Israel already has more than 200 nuclear missiles. So what. The police man at the local Dennys has a handgun. He doesnt broadcast that he's gonna rob the place. The strung out meth addict/convict however does worry me a bit. The question is WHO has the weapon and WHAT are their intentions/values etc. And you know what? That cop may be a royal dick, he's not perfect. But Ill take "flawed but stable" over "psychotic whack job" any day

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:19 p.m. CST

    I will have a good laugh when..

    by Ironmuskrat

    next year rolls around with Clinton being elected president and Bush peacefully leaving office. All of the left wing loons out there can look around in confusion when Bush doesn't declare marshal law, tear up the Constitution and declare himself King George. <p> Reminds me of all the right-wing douche bags militias running for the woods when Bill Clinton was President. Clinton was going to take our rights aways, send in the ATF to take our guns aways, turn the country over to the UN and China. Ruby Ridge and Waco is just the start. Wait and see, if you don't believe it your in denial and refuse to see the facts. Blah, Blah, Blah.. <p> At least the right wing extremists would go and hide in the woods waiting for end times so I didn't to hear their crack pot shit. The Lefty loons seem to control the internet so I can't seem to escape their ranting.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:27 p.m. CST


    by chains

    Do you speak Farsi? Ever rubbed elbows with an Iranian? If you actually took the time to read the correct translation of Ahmadinejad's statement, you would understand that he was talking about wiping the "state of Israel" off the map... as in a regime change. He even went so far as to clarify this during an interview with Mike Wallace... which was also translated poorly. The easy answer that the ignorant masses always respond to (with much emotion and vigor) is that "Leader X" is an evil, maniacal dictator. We've heard this time and time again, and it always happens to be the leader of a country that has natural resources we'd like to get our hands on. Why? Because he would have to be insane to attack either the U.S. or Israel. Why? Because such an attack would assure the destruction of his own country. You see, in spite of the propaganda put forth by our government, the leaders of foreign countries also act in self-interest... which means they have a desire to preserve their way of life. The question is WHO do you choose to believe when it comes to the information you accept as fact, and WHY do you choose to believe them. If you trust the information put forth by Bush or any members of his administration, you need to do some deep soul searching... because all the information they have put forth so far has turned out to be false. And you know what? We're still the biggest bullies on the block, with more troops stationed around the world than anyone else... more nukes than anyone else... and a track record of enforcing our will on those who cross us. Of course, German citizens were all convinced "the Commies" were the real threat to their safety... and we all know how that turned out.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:29 p.m. CST

    There's a word for films like this: PROPAGANDA.

    by TheGhostWhoLurks

    Let's see... Redacted, Rendition, Lions for Lambs... anyone else seeing a pattern here? I'm sorry, but seeing as millions of people are running through the desert like ants just trying to get into this country, many of us are driving around in SUVs and sports cars, 96% of us have jobs and I don't know one person in the U.S. military who didn't volunteer to sign up, I have a very low tolerance for wasting time on crappy, whiny films telling people how totalitarian and horrible the United States is.<p> If it were 1/10th as bad as the myopic idiots in Hollywood believe it was, the dumpster of films trashing Bush/Chaney and their campaign against Islamic terrorists would never have been made in the first place. The very fact that such films ARE made freely and without government intervention simply prove how far up their respective anuses the heads of the "Hollywood elite" truly are. As a Democrat, even I'm sick of their crap.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:44 p.m. CST

    wait- does anyone still believe cable news ?

    by dr.bulber

    i get all my truthful indepth investigating reporting from greta van sustrum.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 8:59 p.m. CST

    "WHY do you choose to believe them..."

    by DoctorWho?

    I dont neccesarily believe them. The whole point is I certainly DONT believe Mullahs/theocrats/ who treat women like cattle/torture homsexuals/hang 16 yr old girls etc... And no I dont speak Farsi nor "rub elbows" with Iranians. But I grew up with Iraqi childhood friends. Your point is...? Have you ever Googled MEMRI TV to see what is broadcast thru the middle east? Or do you look as far as Mike Wallace/Today Show/Fox news et al to see whats happening in the world?

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:09 p.m. CST

    A resume of lies, Doc...

    by chains

    They lied about WMD's in Iraq... they lied about illegal wiretapping... they lied about torture prisons... they lie about male pages who give handjobs... looking for sex in public restrooms... and on and on and on... so why the hell should we believe them when they tell us Iran is developing nukes and plans to "start WWIII?" In fact, the lies of this administration have been so abundant, it's made everything simple: just listen to what they say, and the truth is the exact opposite. Even if Muslims were as bad as you think they are (which they aren't), they have neither the power nor the resources to bring it to fruition. Hitler had the strongest military in the world, and he lost. Iran isn't even a pimple on the ass of the U.S. Wake up.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:20 p.m. CST

    Hmmm information....yeah right

    by Tacoloft

    chains, I'm sorry man-playing Devil's Advocate here, but where did you get your information about "this administration"? Perhaps you should do some soul serching as well on your source of information. "cough" "the media" "cough" "Hollywood" "cough" a "vast left wing conspiracy" (oh, wait--did I misquote?) Indeed--did you come accross this information first-hand? Because there is a shit-load of people who throw those accusations around as FACTS--but they arn't facts... Just a thought... Devil's Advocate here.......

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:37 p.m. CST

    This manufactured fear of Iran is pure propaganda

    by BringingSexyBack

    The manufacturer being Israel. Iran poses no danger to the United States, yet the Zionists have drawn this Administration into a diplomatic conflict with Iran only because we are a convenient lapdog used to protect Israel. <p> Our occupation of Iraq fit squarely in the NeoCon Zionist design to position the U.S. as a buffer between Iran and Israel. Look at the map. That - and oil - are why we're there. Democracy? In your dreams.<p> As to DocWho - Ahmedinejad does not control Iran and certainly not its military. The mullahs ultimately have the final say, and Iran is NOT going to attack Israel. The country is in an economic doldrum, its citizenry are more interested in inflation than a jihad. Think a little, and research the facts, before you fall prey to the Zionist talking points.<p> Israel recently, for the second time in two years, attacked another country - Syria (the other being Lebanon). Israel is acting like a paranoid, and that's fucking dangerous. What needs to happen is a two-state solution needs to be implemented, with guarantees of security for BOTH Israel and Palestine granted by UN resolution, with ONLY the UN allowed to enforce it. The US needs to establish equal and fair diplomatic relations with the entire Middle East in order to secure oil trade and peace.<p> Sure, there are Arab fanatics who would try to derail this. But they're there now, and there are equally fanatical Zionists who want and desire an endless war. But the US needs to pull the fuck out and if that's what they want, let them do it on their own.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:39 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    There are many sources of information that are highly reliable. I don't think everything coming out of CNN or Fox is a complete lie, just a small piece of the big picture. If you want a start on getting some facts, read all of Seymour Hersh's articles at New York Magazine and other sources.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Tacoloft - I meant The New Yorker, not New York

    by BringingSexyBack

    I hate New York Magazine.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Tacoloft - here is Hersh's latest article

    by BringingSexyBack<p> or in tinyurl ...<p>

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Chains...why go off the deep end.

    by DoctorWho?

    "Even if Muslims were as bad as you think they are (which they aren't)"...I'm not talking about Muslims. I'm talking about Radical Facists (who happen to be Muslim). Do you judge all Christians harshly because some whack job kills an abortion doctor? I'm sure you don't. My wife is Muslim. I just celebrated Eid with them.They do not consider me an infidel. If you want a wake up call...visit Oh and Irans mullahs dot want to take over the world. The belief is to create enough chaos on the planet to hearld the "hidden imam" as prophesized. He'll do the rest.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 9:57 p.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    Of course. The citizenry are Irans only hope.The students,the young ones who want to live with a peace,tolerance and stability that we here take for granted.In your rush to blanket me as some Zionist right wing cliche... you assume I demonize a whole country. Make no's the mullahs.Ahmedinejad is a sock puppet.Have you seen the videos of the women being stopped on the street about their attire? Or the felons dangling by their necks from cranes after public execution? These are the tactics of fascists sending a clear message to the populace. These recieved wide coverage...if you havent seen them, then your not as informed as you say.

  • Oct. 17, 2007, 10:12 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    If you read my post carefully, I didn't paint you as a Zionist, but warn you against falling for the Zionist talking points. Some of which are in your posts.<p> I agree with you that a moderate Iran is in everyone's best interest, including the Iranians. No one wants a war, especially the Persians. During Ahmedinejad's visit, I posted about how he, in fact, is very liberal. He pushed through several measures (since vetoed by the mullahs) that supported women's rights. And that's one point I'm making. The Zionists have attempted to paint Ahmedinejad with the "demon' brush but that didn't hold water. Now they're looking for any reason, no matter how baseless, to incite Bush to attack Iran. I have no doubt that the recent incusion by Israel in Syria was a signal to the US that a surgical strike was possible. Syria hasn't responded yet. But any strike by the US in Iran will be devastating. Our soldiers will be targeted like never before in Iraq and Afghanistan. <p> Make no mistake: our future will be determined by what Bush does before he leaves office. And what he will do is highly influenced by the Zionists. With regard to the Seymour Hersh article I cited, I leave you with this quote: "Many of those who support the President’s policy argue that Iran poses an imminent threat. In a recent essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz depicted President Ahmadinejad as a revolutionary, “like Hitler . . . whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it . . . with a new order dominated by Iran. . . . [T]he plain and brutal truth is that if Iran is to be prevented from developing a nuclear arsenal, there is no alternative to the actual use of military force.” Podhoretz concluded, “I pray with all my heart” that President Bush “will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel.” Podhoretz recently told that he had met with the President for about forty-five minutes to urge him to take military action against Iran, and believed that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before leaving office. (Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, is a strong backer of Rudolph Giuliani’s Presidential campaign, and his son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, is a senior adviser to President Bush on national security.) "<p> I oftentimes find it funny how some of the rightwing talkbackers (not you) claim to be NeoCons themselves, when they have no fucking clue what it means. They're the perfect sheep to lead to the slaughter, because all they do is follow Fox. Useful idiots.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 12:16 a.m. CST

    An oxymoronic statement?

    by 5 by 5

    [Sorry, I had to launch a preemptive strike at talkbackers... I'm sure they can at least understand the inherent genius and morality of that strategy.] LOL, um isn't a talkbacker by design someone who is already preempted?

  • "They're the perfect sheep to lead to the slaughter, because all they do is follow Fox. Useful idiots." Gotta love that insightful stereotypical mentality.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Dear SpencerTrilby

    by 5 by 5

    SpencerTrilby They wouldn't have had to scrap any reports if Saddam had been cooperative and proved he didn't have any WMD's. I'm more in the "blame Saddam" camp than the "blame Bush" camp. Golly, even his own people hanged him for being such a booger-head.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Dear Chains

    by 5 by 5

    LOL you're actually saying that Saddam couldn't have prevented this by actually doing what he agreed to do? You're actually trying to deny he used WMD's on his own people? You really believe we totally armed Saddam? And even if we did (which we didn't) do you believe we would sanction him killing civilians on a mass scale like he did? Are you actually DEFENDING Saddam Hussein? If you're defending Saddam's choices, I think at this point we can respectfully agree to disagree.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 2:03 a.m. CST


    by messi

    Now I get why you don't like batman begins. you are fucking stupid. You do know that most of the world hates your country and people like you. Eat shit evil cunt. People like you make this world a shitty place. I have no qualms about who I am because i'm a decent person with compassion, something you'd probably never understand. Jingoistic fucks proud of a shitty country and culture should be knocked out.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 8:55 a.m. CST

    AnimalStructure = Shit stem

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    That is all.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 8:56 a.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Please don't hate my country. We can make it better. Cunt.<P>;^)

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Your funny messi...

    by DoctorWho?

    "...i'm a decent person with compassion". Gee, based on your posts, you strike me as more of a hateful little foul mouthed 12yr old with no valid points whatsoever.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Peter Gibbons - This isn't about BASEBALL??

    by finky089

    Go TRIBE!!!!!! Chief Wahoo for pres in '08!

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 1:27 p.m. CST

    AnimalStructure (aka Thunderballs)

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    BSB probably says what he says because he believes the US is the greater threat and that the world is run by Shia and the Jews.<P>You, on the other hand, are an embarrassment to Humanity. I don't know what cess pool you crawled out of or what amoeba you ate to become a two-celled piece of shit but...please...STOP.<P>Stop speaking on behalf of the US or, for that matter, the rest of mankind in general.<P>Thanks.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 2:29 p.m. CST

    What's with all the hate for Adolph Hitler?

    by Bronx Cheer

    Aw, that's a LOLZ.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 2:44 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    You'll never have to ask for my opinion.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    That in your face "US owns your ass" metality is weak and isnt going to win you any friends

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 3:04 p.m. CST


    by Quin the Eskimo

    I generally like you. But fuck you (politley)for using the term "Zionist Talking Points", coupled with the downplaying of Ahmadinejad. If I had grandparent who were marched into ovens and gas chambers en masse I would NEVER take lightly the words of a man who downplays the holocaust. Talking Points? Calling for Jews to be ran into the sea is Xenophobia. Don't just tell me it's Zionists either. If I called for all Africans to be run into the sea, but I'm cool with the ones who live here, I would expect to be called a xenophobic cocksucker. And that what Ahmadinejad is. Taking a stand on this doesn't make me a weak minded FOX clone either. Making a stand against that kind of rhetoric should be applauded, not scoffed.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 9:54 p.m. CST

    This lib never praised any shitbag foreign leaders,

    by Bronx Cheer

    so take your brush and tar someone else with your generalizations. Fuck off.

  • Oct. 18, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    While I understand your passionate response (and take no offense to it), it is misplaced. While Ahmedinejad and other Anti-Zionists (Jews included - look up Neturei Karta) have called for the dismantling of Israel (not the destruction of Israel/Israelis), I support a fair two-state solution. And Ahmedinejad has not called for the killing of Jews, which makes all the difference in the world. Iran has a significant Jewish population that has a Constitutionally guaranteed representation in Parliament. What I'm saying is that Iranians are not enemies of the Jewish people. Far from it.<p> I think you need to understand the distinction between Zionism and Judaism. To be Anti-Zionist is not to be "Anti-Semitic" or, in the case of Jews, to be "Self-Hating". And that's where I'm coming from. Ahmedinejad is not Hitler, no matter what that idiot AnimalStructure says. Persians do not want to destroy Jews nor do they even care to take over the country next door, let alone attack Israel. They just want their economy restored. They want jobs and an end to their rampant inflation. <p> Once you understand Zionism, and how destructive it is for Jews at large, and Israel in particular, you'll understand what I'm saying. DocWho and I have had our past differences over Middle East issues, but even he understands me in this regard.<p> And to AnimalStructure: I don't support Ahmedinejad en total. But I have to say two important things about him:<p> He is not Hitler and Iran is not Nazi Germany. The rhetoric painting them as such is designed by the Zionists to stoke anti-Iranian hatred and beat the drums for an unwarranted attack on that country. <p> I recognize that, despite some egregious actions by the Iranian government, they are not nearly as bad as the Taliban, or even Pakistan. Ahmedinejad, in the midst of a rising tide of Islamism, is indeed an educated moderate who has supported women's rights. We have to support moderation in the Islamic world anywhere we find it, and you are too blind to recognize it in Ahmedinejad because you're so brainwashed by the NeoCon talking points. Your arguments are embarassingly thin and baseless. To call Liberals sexist and homophobic when the Republicans have done everything they can to curb the rights of women and homosexuals is laughably inane. But I can't even blame you. You're just uninformed and ignorant, and don't even have the capacity to inject logic in your arguments. Maybe your mother didn't give you enough vitamins when you're a baby. Who knows.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 12:05 a.m. CST


    by DoctorWho?

    This is the level of womens rights in Iran. Fuck Ahmadinejad. I always refrain from posting links but this says it all.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 6:59 a.m. CST

    DocWho - That's is HARDLY an argument for comparing Ahmedinejad

    by BringingSexyBack

    Some crazy lady lecturing women on the street about wearing a hajib? Are you serious? Where are the videos showing the continual pogroms and lynchings of Jews in the streets of Tehran? Oh wait ...<p> Seriously, though. Some Islamist can post a link to a profile about Chester Arthur Stiles and say that all Americans are child molestors. Doesn't make it true. And how does Ahmedinejad have anything to do with the dress code? That's something the mullahs devised, not him. He supports more freedoms, especially ACADEMIC (which is extremely rare among the more radical factions of Islam) freedoms and opportunities for women. Again, you're totally spellbound by the Zionist-created persona they've assigned to Ahmedinejad.<p> And does Iran having a dress code mean the U.S. should bomb the country? I don't get your argument at all.<p> In Iran, women comprise 65% of the university population. Women are elected to and are active in Parliament. Women have the right to vote. Try finding these rights in the majority of other Muslim nations.<p> Iran still has a long way to progress in human rights, but so does every other country on the planet. No country is nearly perfect in that regard, except perhaps Monaco. But that's a monarchy, not even a democracy. And look at what happened in Pakistan yesterday. Talk about a country going backwards. Pervez Musharraf, though not evidently responsible for the attempted assassination of Bhutto, is far more of the dictatorial ruler than the Zionists make Ahmedinejad to be, and he has nuclear capability. The only reason no one is beating the drums for war against Pakistan is because Israel doesn't deem them to be an enemy, so neither do her lapdogs in Washington. There is no possibly legitimate basis to support an unwarranted attack on Iran. Period.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 7:07 a.m. CST

    AnimalStructure - See my post above

    by BringingSexyBack

    That pretty much answers your post. As to your name-calling, it just shows how your argument is, as usual, totally without merit. I surmise from your post that you would like to see Iran bombed, and potentially thousands of innocent Iranians killed, because they outlaw homosexuality? You must be the most devoted gay rights activist this planet has ever seen.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 7:19 a.m. CST

    DocWho and AnimalStructure - Don't forget to participate ...

    by BringingSexyBack

    Apparently it's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 9:26 a.m. CST


    by messi

    You don't know what country i'm from, or how I see the world, i could be from the US. I'm talking about you as a person. You don't seem like a decent human being. You see the world as Us and Them, like somehow anyone who isn't from the US is inferior. You seriously do seem like a heartless person and I'd put it to being part nature and part nurture. No human being is superior to another, all a cesspool of shit, but you sit at the very top. You are a complete human being.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Hey Messi

    by BringingSexyBack

    I find it funny that Animal thinks he speaks for America when he hates the majority of Americans. He's just so damned ignorant, you can't hate him. You have to feel sorry for him. He's a sheep who hates whomever the Rightwing tells him to hate. He's a sad example of humanity. I don't know what country you're from, but you're alright. We're all brothers and sisters on this planet, and we should represent our respective nations with integrity and respect for all of humanity.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 10:01 a.m. CST

    DocWho - my previous subject line should have read ...

    by BringingSexyBack

    "That's is HARDLY an argument for comparing Ahmedinejad to Hitler"<p> But I think you guessed that already.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 2:40 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to DoctorWho and Quin the Eskimo, so I hardly "played along". Frankly, you're not worth the time. I only made the observation that you are a narrow-minded, hateful little person who cannot originate an opinion, only regurgitate talking points. You're ignorant and when you resort to insults as you just have, you've fully demonstrated the extent of your full intellect.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 2:53 p.m. CST

    About those crazy Zionists

    by BringingSexyBack

    This may be news to you, and may hurt your brain to wrap around it, so read slowly. Since there are Christian Zionists, and Anti-Zionist Jews, how do you equate Zionists = Jews? Do you even know what Zionism is, or do you enjoy embarassing yourself? I have a number of Jewish friends (shocker, I know) who are Anti-Zionist and support an independent Palestine. I suggest you get out into the real world and widen your horizons by befriending people of differing backgrounds. Exercise your brain before it rots completely.

  • Oct. 19, 2007, 8:42 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you, of all people, dated and befriended Muslims, much less females? Where does one find such undiscriminating females? LOL, and I mean that.<p> There is a difference between "supporting" Ahmedinejad, and acknowledging the fact that he is not Hitler. Not even close, not by a long shot. <p> Beyond that, I suggest you re-read my last few posts and come back to me with an intelligent rebuttal instead of your standard insult-laden talking points post. Your inability to debate point-by-point doesn't entitle you to a decent response.

  • Oct. 20, 2007, 12:32 p.m. CST

    I take my Gibbons bashing back

    by SpencerTrilby

    Now that the smoke is gone, and the TB dead, I painfully admit he was right. The TBers CANNOT argue decently. His review is still beyond shit, but his AICN crowd contempt has been fueled with a vengeance.