comment #1

malibugigolo says ...

Maybe a Lou Godard film from Queens.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

Oh good, 88 minutes of a one-sided argument. I'm liberal and that sounds terrible. I just got out of seeing In the Valley of Elah and was intending to see it with an open mind based on what good reviews it had gotten but nope, same old crap.

comment #3

MASON says ...

Couldn't agree more, jeffmcm. And even worse, the failure of Lambs will no doubt kill any chance Against All Enemies had of getting made -- and that script is excellent.

comment #4

Jamie says ...

Saw Lions for Lambs last night. I would say it is solid but not spectacular. In its defense though, the film isn't entirely one-sided. Although Tom Cruise's character represents the typical neocon, he is still charismatic and persuasive enough to prevent the liberal perspective from being too preachy.

And Meryl Streep is fantastic.

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Yeah, Robert Redford will direct a Godard movie the day Brett Ratner develops a Lubitsch Touch.

comment #6

jeffmcm says ...

Fortunately for Ratner you can take care of that with penicillin.

comment #7

Larry says ...

"...Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the other staunch neocon militarists..."

"Other" implies these two are neocons, which they're not, of course. In fact, there wasn't a single neocon in the Bush cabinet when he invaded Iraq.

Once again, we see being a Wells-ian liberal means being arrogant, uninformed, and proud of it.

comment #8

Walter Sobchak says ...

I'm sure all of the "neo-con bushies" are going to drop what they are doing and run right out to see "Lions for Lambs".

Boy oh boy are they gonna be mad!

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

"there wasn't a single neocon in the Bush cabinet when he invaded Iraq."

Purely for informational purposes - how's that again?

comment #10

JD says ...

Neocon isn't a religious designation, Larry, it's totally subjective... like calling someone an "asshole."

comment #11

T. S. Idiot says ...

"Once again, we see being a Wells-ian liberal means being arrogant, uninformed, and proud of it."

Pardon me if I'm misinterpreting this comment, but isn't it an example of arrogance?

I've read somewhere that right-wingers are so full of hate because they're all afflicted with back hair and small penises.

comment #12

christian says ...

"I've read somewhere that right-wingers are so full of hate because they're all afflicted with back hair and small penises."

Any party whose only pin-up gal is Ann Coulter are certainly afflicted with something painful...

comment #13

Larry says ...

jeffmcm, like "fascist," "neocon" has been so misused that it doesn't really have any meaning any more (though it's still useful for people who want to attack Jews without saying their names).

But originally, and this is a vast oversimplification, neocons were leftists (usually in the 60s) who split as they saw liberals turning against America. Neocons were humanists strongly invested in basic rights, who believed freedom and democracy should be the goal of U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to the left, whom they saw as too willing to surrender to moral equivalency between us and our enemies, or the right of the time (Nixon and Kissinger) who believed in realpolitik--detente, and learning to live with communists and others, even if we officially oppose them.

Of course, from the neocons' point of view, they were the true liberals and the so-called liberals had forgotten their mission. As JFK said in his inaugural: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Many, but hardly all, of the original neocons, such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, were Jews. For decades they had lengthy political debates, and many disagreements over the best ways to achieve their goals, so it's hard to pin any particular policy on them. But they did warn for years of the serious threat from Islam (now that communism is not the danger it once was), so they looked pretty prescient on 9/11.

There were neocons who worked for or advised people in the Bush cabinet, but the cabinet itself was made up of paleo-conservatives, or just plain conservatives (of various stripes). "Neo" of course mean "new", and you can't be a new conservative if you were never anything else.

comment #14

Walter Sobchak says ...

"right-wingers are so full of hate" ?!?!?!

www.evilgopbastards.com/

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

www.democraticunderground.com/

www.bushsucks.com/

and any party (Democrats) whose only pin-up gal is Arianna "The Smart Gabor Sister" Huffington is.... oh enough

comment #15

le corbeau says ...

"Neocon isn't a religious designation, Larry, it's totally subjective... like calling someone an "asshole.""

Which is exactly the point. As Larry describes, it once had a very specific cultural meaning (the Podhoretz-Kristol crowd of Jewish intellectuals who moved rightward in the 60s and 70s). Now it's used by slackjawed Chomsky readers as indiscriminately as, indeed, a curse like "asshole."

They may have been influenced to some greater or lesser degree by the neocons, but the primary architects of the administration's foreign policy-- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Armitage, Wolfowitz, etc.-- were no more neocons than they were Mugwumps or Copperheads.

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

"I've read somewhere that right-wingers are so full of hate because they're all afflicted with back hair and small penises."

Well, that tells us a lot more about your reading than about the right wing.

comment #17

jeffmcm says ...

Thanks for the info, Larry, although I disagree with several of your points. I'm a liberal and I also believe in an expansive foreign policy promoting democracy and freedom, but I can't say that I find any evidence of that in the movement currently termed 'neoconservative'. Whether that nomenclature is accurate or not, it's stuck.

comment #18

futureman says ...

No one will see Lions for Lambs except liberals who like to congratulate themselves for being liberals. A movie about politics and the war will not appeal to the masses now, the only hope is that it causes an uproar and some more people go see it.

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

Are you trying to tell me that Cheney is not a mugwump?

comment #20

MPNeeb says ...

""It's' almost all talk and that's fine because it really goes after the Bushies and is going to piss off Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the other staunch neocon militarists to no end""

Right. Making those guys angry is like shooting fish in a barrel.

comment #21

christian says ...

"Neocons were humanists strongly invested in basic rights,"

Something's been lost in translation over the years then.

comment #22

EOTW says ...

Get so tired of people lumping Bill O'Reilly in with the likes of nannity. Yeah, he's a traditionalist but he is A LOT less right wing conservative than those guys. And since when does wanting to protect our country make one a bad person? I'm not on the left or right, so I guess middle ground folks get left out of the argument. Thank Christ for that,

comment #23

Heleno says ...

This is doing my head in - I've seen it and I don't think it's one-sided at all. If anything, Cruise's neo-con is entirely sincere in his beliefs and it's the liberals who are a bit unsure of their beliefs. Can't we leave the accusations of one-sidedness to O'Reilly et al and give it the benefit of the doubt till then?

comment #24

le corbeau says ...

"If anything, Cruise's neo-con is entirely sincere in his beliefs and it's the liberals who are a bit unsure of their beliefs"

Thus showing that liberals are thoughtful and see all sides, while conservatives shine with the inner glow of fanaticism.

comment #25

SpinDozer says ...

'like "fascist," "neocon" has been so misused that it doesn't really have any meaning any more (though it's still useful for people who want to attack Jews without saying their names).'

Nice use of the general issue anti-semitism stealth spell, Larry. Does that apply to bitching about Chomsky? He is Jewish you know.

Like fascists, neo-cons don't have a 'manifesto' (remember mein kampf is Hitler's thumb-suck about his struggle & Duce's writings, while they do have some important points, are better understood as PR) of any kind which spells out specific beliefs and values which can make it difficult to pin down and does, occassionally, lead to some sloppy misuse of the term-tho not, of course, to the extent implied by the Right Wingers on this blog.

Larry does get some of the main points right, Jewish (mainly) Trotskyites were 'turned' into rabid right wingers. The excellent 'Power Of Nightmares' doc features Kristol junior & senior discussing 'neoconservatism' and the strong influence of Leo Strauss (also Jewish). When it comes to Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz & all the other signatories (inc. Wild Bill Kristol) of the Project For The New American Century, I don't know if its more correct to say they are Strausserians, NeoCons, or just plain Imperialists, but 'assholes' works just as well.

comment #26

le corbeau says ...

Thus my point about the term being thrown about by those who know nothing about it.

comment #27

Joel says ...

The quintessential question is: will people see this movie? Yes or no?

I'm guessing no.

comment #28

SpinDozer says ...

Your point would appear to be that no one knows anything about 'neocons' except right wingers who can define the term however they choose. Now that we know what wonderful misunderstood souls they are, would you care to help us understand fascists?

There are people like Hannah Arendt, Laurence Britt, Umberto Eco, etc., who have observed fascism and attempted definitions that other, presumably slack-jawed, intellectuals have said match up nicely with your hero's government. These people are obviously indiscriminately throwing a term they don't understand around, right? Just typical Liberals trying to drag the good man down, no?

comment #29

SpinDozer says ...

'"right-wingers are so full of hate" ?!?!?!

www.evilgopbastards.com/

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

www.democraticunderground.com/

www.bushsucks.com/

and any party (Democrats) whose only pin-up gal is Arianna "The Smart Gabor Sister" Huffington is.... oh enough'

That's right Wally. People who don't tolerate intolerance are just as guilty as the intolerant.

comment #30

le corbeau says ...

"Your point would appear to be that no one knows anything about 'neocons' except right wingers who can define the term however they choose."

No, my point is the word has an actual meaning and you're not using it correctly.

comment #31

SpinDozer says ...

And the 'actual' meaning is...

bonus points if you can narrow it down to irrelevance.

comment #32

le corbeau says ...

"And the 'actual' meaning is..."

discussed, perfectly clearly, above.

But apparently you're disappointed that it's not condemnatory enough, and doesn't apply to who you wish it would apply to.

comment #33

George Prager says ...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

comment #34

christian says ...

" And since when does wanting to protect our country make one a bad person? "

When that person is loudmouth bullying liar like Bill O'Reilly.

comment #35

le corbeau says ...

Thanks for the valued insight, George.

Can we just we just take for granted that all pundits with talk shows are worthless and of no consequence? It's like when people throw Ann Coulter at me, as if she were an important thinker, rather than the political equivalent of Dave Barry getting humor out of exploding toilets.

comment #36

SpinDozer says ...

Thought it might be something like that.

Since you didn't bother to copy paste, I will...

'Neocons were humanists strongly invested in basic rights, who believed freedom and democracy should be the goal of U.S. foreign policy.

Why the past tense? Are they extinct?

By this "definition", not only are Rumsfeld and Wolf-o-witz (way to go slack-jaws!), but George W & Cheyney, not to mention Bill Clinton, are all neo-cons. Thanks for clearing that up. 'Course if you want to explain why Kristol is a Neo-con and, say, Wolfowitz ain't, that would be peachy. If not, you can always say non-right wingers are just too stupid or evil to understand & that'll work too.

comment #37

le corbeau says ...

Really, the answers are very clearly in this thread, you're just being willfully dense, to no purpose that I can see-- it's like trying to prove that someone from Wisconsin is from Michigan because they're so close to the border. Yes, but still, Donald Rumsfeld was not a leftist intellectual writing for Commentary in 1966, he was a Republican Congressman, so he's not a neoconservative-- he's simply a conservative, arguably subsequently influenced by neoconservatives.

Is that really something worth going around and around on? If so, feel free to do so-- by yourself.

comment #38

Craig Kennedy says ...

Jesus, it's like Ain't it Cool Politics in here.

While I think I have a different worldview than Larry, his brief history lesson brings up an important point that there are some serious, fundamental questions about government and our role in the world and these questions aren't really being discussed in the media or by the politicians.

Mgmax is right when he asks "Can we just we just take for granted that all pundits with talk shows are worthless and of no consequence?", unfortunately, that's the level of discourse in this country right now. It's where people are getting their information. They gravitate towards the people who are saying what they want to hear.

We're spinning our wheels.

comment #39

Bocephus says ...

Cheney is definitely a mugwump.

comment #40

SpinDozer says ...

So all neo conservatives are former leftists and may have wrote for Commentary in 1966. You have earned the bonus points for explaining it into irrelevancy. That should put a stop to all the slack-jawed leftists misusing the term for their own sinister purposes.

'Mgmax is right when he asks "Can we just we just take for granted that all pundits with talk shows are worthless and of no consequence?", unfortunately, that's the level of discourse in this country right now.'

And that "discourse" is pretty much on one end of the spectrum, if one has independent data that doesn't match the world view of that end of the spectrum, they are marginilized into the other end of the spectrum (Global Warming, for instance).

comment #41

Jay T. says ...

I don't understand how there can even be two sides to the whole, "Bushies and their mishandling of the Middle Eastern terrorist threat" discussion. I mean, does anyone really believe they did a good job with all of this?

comment #42

le corbeau says ...

"does anyone really believe they did a good job with all of this?"

No one who gets all their knowledge of the world from leftwing media does, we know that much, Jay T. Even SpinDozer admits that only the left side of the spectrum gets airplay and reported in major newspapers. The right wing had to start its own news channel to compete with the three or four liberal-left ones in existence, not to mention the major networks.

comment #43

Jay T. says ...

I didn't realize people were still spreading that "liberal media" myth...

comment #44

christian says ...

"Even SpinDozer admits that only the left side of the spectrum gets airplay and reported in major newspapers. The right wing had to start its own news channel to compete with the three or four liberal-left ones in existence, not to mention the major networks."

But I thought FOX was fair and balanced?

And Mgmax, kee-rist please. What leftwing media dared question the drumbeat of war in 2003? Across the networks, bold blazing graphics with stirring music trumpeted the ATTACK ON IRAQ! like a national football game. If you were an honest fellow, you can't reflect back in that perioid and tell me that the media battled Bush on his war. Even NPR came down hard on the war protestors that the "left-wing media" ignored. Your thesis is incorrect and born of your ideology.

"Well, Commander Thompson, thanks for talking with us at this very early hour out there. And I just want you to know, I think Navy SEALs rock!"

- Katie Couric, April 3, 2003

comment #45

Walter Sobchak says ...

But christian, the Navy SEALs DO rock!

And I can't believe people are still spreading that "liberal media" myth, too. Everyone knows what right-wing tools Matt Lauer, Keith Douchebag Olbermann and Anderson Cooper are.

And everyone knows that Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, George Stephanapolis, Tim Russert worked for Republican politicians....

what's that? ....... really?...... nevermind

comment #46

SpinDozer says ...

'Even SpinDozer admits that only the left side of the spectrum gets airplay and reported in major newspapers.'

Um, no, he didn't do anything as asinine as that.

By the By Mgmax, you do know that Karl Marx was the only Liberal? He did influence a few people, but since they didn't write The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, they can't really be called "liberal" with any accuracy. So with Karl passed on, no way there could be a liberal media. You admitted so yourself, think it was reading powerline coked up on oxycontin that did it but, good enuff.

comment #47

George Prager says ...

I'd rather go down on Chewbacca than read this thread again.

comment #48

christian says ...

Gives a whole new definition to the name "Chewy."

And just to stick it to the Men, when you lose Merle Haggard to Hillary Clinton, you've lost the race:

"The thing that gets under my skin most about George W. is his intention to install fear in people. This is America. We're proud. We're not afraid of a bunch of terrorists. But this government is all about terror alerts and scaring us at airports. We're changing the Constitution out of fear. We spend all our time looking up each other's dresses. Fear's the only issue the Republican Party has. Vote for them, or the terrorists will win."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670184,00.html

comment #49

le corbeau says ...

Another four or five posts on the topic and you might convince me, SpinDozer. Get cracking.

Christian, without Merle Haggard, I think it will be very difficult for Bush to win in 2008.

comment #50

George Prager says ...

I'd rather titty-fuck Rip Taylor than read this thread again.

comment #51

SpinDozer says ...

'Another four or five posts on the topic and you might convince me, SpinDozer. Get cracking.'

Oh, I'll convince Powerline, that should do it. Maybe I can convince them to provide lotsa coverage to the chewbacca-prager-Taylor threeway...like a soopa padded extra virgin comforter, jess cover the whole damn thing up.

comment #52

christian says ...

All in all, it's just another brick in the wall.

comment #53

Heleno says ...

I can't believe the "liberal media" get-out-of-jail-free card is still being played. What utter b*llocks.