October 12, 2012, - 5:03 pm

Argo: Great Reminder of the Islamic Threat, Despite Affleck’s Anti-US “History” Lesson & Jimmy Carter’s Whining

By Debbie Schlussel

Argo,” in theaters today, is a great movie sandwiched in between two bad far-leftist monologues. Director Ben Affleck tries to justify the Iranian revolution and the violent, deadly actions of Iranian Shi’ite Muslims supporting Ayatollah Khomeini at the beginning of this film. And he gives Jimmy Carter free reign to whine and take credit at the end. But despite Affleck’s best efforts at that, the movie is gold sandwiched between these two slices of crap. No matter what, it’s a great, unvarnished reminder of the Islamic threat that keeps repeating itself. And so I still recommend it.


The Real Tony Mendez (Right), Retired CIA Chief of Disguises & Fake Documents, Today @ Age 70

“Argo” is the story of the six Americans at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, who escaped when Shi’ite Muslim followers of Ayatollah Khomeini overtook our embassy and held everyone inside hostage for 444 days. The six found refuge in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence (the English and the Australians, it should be noted, turned them away to what could have been the Americans’ deaths). The movie is a thriller detailing the mission by CIA agent and disguise and forgery expert Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck) to get them out and safely back to America. To rescue them, Mendez pretends he is a Canadian movie producer of a science fiction film, called “Argo.” He goes to Hollywood and recruits Jewish producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and “Planet of the Apes” make-up man John Chambers (John Goodman) to help him with his ruse, setting up an entire fictional production, complete with movie posters, actors doing read-throughs, and a studio office. I wondered why they recruited a Jewish guy, given that the Khomeini’ist Shi’ite Muslims (and all Sh’ite Muslims) hate Jews. I researched this, found no real-life producer named Lester Siegel, and learned that the character is a “composite” character and I wonder if the real producers involved were actually Jewish (I bet not). I also wondered why they featured scantily clad women on the movie posters and at read-throughs. And I was on to something as that issue of modesty comes up later in the movie, as you’ll see. And, finally, I wondered if the nail-biting, thrilling climax of the movie actually happened that way in real life. And, it turns out, my suspicions were correct–that’s the only part of the movie that isn’t true to what happened in reality. I enjoyed the movie, which is thrilling, well-told, and entertaining, BUT . . . and a big BUT it is.


Here’s the BUT: Sandwiched in between Howard-Zinn-fan director and star Ben Affleck’s anti-American “history” lesson about why the Iranian Shi’ite Muslim Khomeini freaks were right to hate America and and storm our embassy in Tehran at the beginning of this movie, and Jimmy Carter’s monologue whine about how he should have gotten the credit for the mission depicted in this movie, there was actually a great movie about a real life event. And, other than his America-hating history BS and one other “evil Americans” scene, the movie was clearly depicted as accurately as possible. The words, Muslim and Islam, however are predictably only mentioned during the diatribe at the beginning, in which a female narrator tells us how we destroyed Iran by deposing Mosaddegh and allegedly imposing the pro-American Shah or Iran. That ain’t exactly how it happened, but you know the drill. I don’t need Mr. Affleck’s chick voiceover artist to tell me that the Shah tortured people, when he did very little compared to the guys who took over from him. Oh, and he was an ally of the US and Israel, but who cares about that, right?

There are also a couple of news footage scenes (Affleck uses a lot of real footage and well-replicated scenes of actual scenes and events) of Americans kicking Iranian students in America. Frankly, Americans were far too kind to the few Iranians they attacked, and were very nice to most of them here. That’s despite the fact that thousands of Iranian students overstayed their visas here, became illegal aliens, and actively supported the Khomeini’ites. A former top INS official detailed how thousands of those Iranians protested in front of the White House and were arrested by the INS. And, yet, President Carter ordered that the Iranians be freed into the American abyss without ever being fingerprinted, identified, and/or booked. Affleck doesn’t show you that, either. (One thing I noticed missing: any mention of Ronald Reagan, who actually got the other hostages out.)

But once the actual story is told, Ben Affleck’s politically correct fantasy of Iran and Shi’ism cannot overcome the reality of what Muslims did to our embassy and our people. And he tells that story accurately and well, something that I must recognize in this review. Yesterday, I spoke with my friend, Kevin Hermening, who was the youngest of the American hostages taken by the Shi’ite Muslims for 444 days. I asked him about several of the scenes I saw, and he confirmed their veracity. I’ll be posting separately, later today, about my interview with Kevin. A U.S. Marine stationed at the embassy, Kevin will be seeing the movie in about a week and says he will call me with his detailed review, which I’ll try to post here. Kevin confirmed to me an important scene in the movie. The Iranian Muslims are shown taking the U.S. hostages in the embassy in blindfolds to a room where shooters are lined up in front of them. They all thought they were going to die. The shooters begin shooting, but the guns are not loaded. Kevin told me that’s exactly how it happened, and that, unlike in the movie, every single hostage was lined up for this mock execution they all thought was real.

Back to the six who escaped to the Canadian Ambassador’s compound. They are not the most likable bunch in the movie. They’re shown as whiny liberals, some of whom side with the Khomeini Shi’ite revolutionaries and think America should release the Shah to the Muslims to be tried and executed. Not all of them even wanted to leave the U.S. Embassy, believing the Muslims wouldn’t really take over and harm them. When Mendez comes to rescue them, they are stubborn and don’t want to be rescued. They’d rather risk their lives in Iran, despite the fact that the Canadian Ambassador must leave and will have to abandon them to the wolves. You get the idea that this is exactly how State Department far-left liberals who seek out posts in Muslim countries behave and act. (And you wonder if these people were worth rescuing if this is really what they were like.)

It’s a harrowing mission for Mendez, and the movie depicts the bureaucratic idiocy that is the CIA and how the Carter Administration wouldn’t even sign off on the mission until the last minute when it was forced to do so or face American deaths and bad PR. The movie is also funny at times and gets the stylistic stuff right: eyeglasses, ties, lapels, and men’s hair–all of them on the big side. (One thing I think many moviegoers will not get: the term “exfil” is used a lot in the movie, without anyone ever saying it’s short for “exfiltration.”)

Given all of this, Ben Affleck’s exercise in America-hating at the beginning and his open mic to Jimmy Carter to whine about “me, me, me” didn’t affect the unintended message of the movie: that the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran are brutal, evil people who hate Americans. Yes, there is the typical “good Muslim”–a housekeeper. But make no mistake: Muslims will not like this movie. I do.

The best part of the movie is when the plane clears Iranian airspace and an announcement on the plane’s intercom announces that alcohol is served.

Learn more about the real life Tony Mendez and his amazing, heroic mission. And make sure you stay through the credits to see how lifelike and real Affleck made everything–he shows many pics of the real people and places and the ones in the movie. You will have to plug your ears though. Or you’ll hear good ‘ole Jimmuh.

THREE REAGANS (Would be FOUR But for Ben Affleck’s Anti-US History Lesson & Billy Carter’s Bro’s Whining)
reagancowboyreagancowboyreagancowboy

Watch the trailer . . .

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

43 Responses

Thanks Deb.

I was hoping to see your insight on this flick.

ebayer on October 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

I am grateful for DS’ caveats on this film. I do intend to see it. And she knows this stuff better than anyone (especially Liberal know-nothing movie reviewers).

It’s just another example of the PC morass we must push through. As I become more and more open about my unexpurgated thoughts on Islamic Jihad in my everyday life, I see the HUGE PC bulwark that must be blasted through and it annoys me to no ends. Idiots who are 99% ignorant on the subject temper their words with “fundamentalists” and “moderate” or “extremists”.

Ben Affleck. Man, I have always been annoyed by that bouf-head. I get distracted by his big, bouffy head. He thinks because he works with Cindy McCain on his “Eastern Congo Initiative” program that he’s soooo bi-partisan. PUH-LEEZE!

The Congo is a passion of mine and it’s hard to find a reputable charity on how to make a difference. Ben Affleck has the Eastern Congo Initiative. I avoided it for so long because I did not want to follow BA but I wasn’t seeing any other Congo “charity” that could be legitimate. But I must admit I am still trying to feel them out and see if they are a real deal. I still do not know what they do so I haven’t sent a dime or gotten involved. When dealing with any African nation one must really know where their $$ is going and I still don’t understand the ECI.

Skunky on October 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm

The word “Argo” has a mythical connect to the heroic adventures of the legendary Argonauts. They searched for the power of the Golden Fleece. The Americans trapped in Iran searched for something even more precious – their freedom. Debbie may be right those far leftist Americans weren’t probably the likeliest candidates who their country should have rescued but the film makes one thing absolutely clear: whatever our shortcomings, we are far better than our enemies.

And will always be – we’re special like the people who braved everything on the ancient “Argo” because we are a truly special people. That is what makes America unique! And keep it in mind when you drive home from seeing this movie.

NormanF on October 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm

I think I might actually see this film, although the idea of having to watch Jimmy Carter whine is a real turn-off. However, the movie Argo sounds like it could be cleaned up with some editing, mostly at the beginning and end.

As for the name of the character who is the “producer” of the movie (that is serving as a cover for a black operations)–Lester Siegel–I can think of several reasons why a Jewish name was chosen.

First of all, the idea of making a movie as a cover for another operation, is an idea that has previously been developed–and probably created–by Jews before. The first movie that comes to mind with this idea is Woody Allen’s “Take the Money and Run” (1969), his first movie and still one of his best (when his interest in leftist politics did not yet take hold on him to drain his talent away). In that film, Allen as Virgil Starkwell, a would-be criminal joins a band of other criminals with a plan to rob a bank. The plan involves setting up a movie near the bank they intend to rob as a cover for the crime. (Incidentally, Allen originalled wanted another great comedian, Jerry Lewis, to play Virgil, but Allen later decided to play the character himself.)

The idea of a making a movie as a front/cover for the real operation turns up again much later in the movie “Wag the Dog” (1997), directed by Barry Levinson, and screenplay by Hilary Henkin and David Mamet, from a book by Larry Beinhart. Not sure about whether Henkin and Beinhart are Jews, but Levinson and Mamet certainly are. But more important to my point, is that the producer/director brought in to do the fake movie that is to serve as a cover (in this case a diversion) from the real events is also a Jewish character named Stanley Motts. Motts is played by Jewish actor Dustin Hoffman, and in “Wag the Dog” Hoffman is doing a dead-on character based on real life legendary Hollywood producer Robert Evans, who is also a Jew.

Finally, the screenwriter of “Argo” is Joshuah Bearman, who is almost certainly Jewish. Here’s how his story for “Argo” got optioned: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Argo-Writer-Shopping-Another-Fantastical-True-Story-Film-33539.html.

So, unless anyone can find some evidence that the idea of using a movie being made as a cover for some clandestine operation was done before 1969′s “Take the Money and Run,” it looks like Woody Allen should get full credit for inventing the idea. A case of life imitating art.

And with a background and tradition like this, it’s only natural to name the producer character Lester Siegel.

Ralph Adamo on October 12, 2012 at 8:34 pm

Neither you nor I would be here today, and Debbie Schlussel would never have been allowed to exist if 1280 years ago Charles Martel on Oct 11 with 30,000 Christian soldiers at Tours, France had not crushed an invading horde of crusading jihadist Muslims.

Charles “The Hammer” Martel destroyed the Islamic invasion of Europe and nascent Western Civilization. Without him Europe would have been overrun, destroyed Islamicized and there would never have been an America in consequence.

Read more about Charles Martel here – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Give thanks for Charles Martel

Jack on October 13, 2012 at 12:51 am

    Jack, historians have been divided on the significance of Charles “The Hammer” Martel and the Battle of Tours. And there are a vast number–and possibly an infinite number–of events besides this one that, had they not occurred in precisely the same way, would alter history such that neither you, nor me, nor Debbie would be here today.

    However, that is not to understate the importance of the role of the Battles of Tours in history, as some historians have chosen to do, for various reasons. In this regard, historian Paul Davis’ take on the Battle of Tours seems reasonable. I’ll quote from the Wikipedia reference you cited:

    “Paul Davis, another modern historian who addresses both sides in the debate over whether or not this Battle truly determined the direction of history, as [historian William E.] Watson claims, or merely was a relatively minor raid, as [historian Franco Cardini writes, says “whether Charles Martel saved Europe for Christianity is a matter of some debate. What is sure, however, is that his victory ensured that the Franks would dominate Gaul for more than a century.” Davis writes, “Moslem defeat ended the Moslems’ threat to western Europe, and Frankish victory established the Franks as the dominant population in western Europe, establishing the dynasty that led to Charlemagne.””

    But you should also not forget that with the dynasty that led to Charlemagne came Charlemagne’s “Capitulary for the Jews” (introduced in 814). Under Charlemagne’s laws, Jews were prohibited from lending of money for interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitulary_for_the_Jews. Limitations were imposed on the ability of Jews to conduct normal business largely because the Christians who then dominated were envious of the ability of the Jews to succeed, even in prejudicial environments. Charlemagne also instituted price controls and heavy taxes on certain goods and commodities. Does this stuff sound familiar? It should. Clamping down on Jews and free enterprise, and instituting authoritarian controls on prices and other aspects of life are classic obsessions of extreme left-wing and extreme right-wing advocates.

    And it is a fact of history that if not for the Jews who lent money to support the cause of the American Revolution, it would have failed. So if not for those Jewish “moneylenders” there would be no you, no me, no Debbie, and no USA either. For a little history about that, see this link: http://jewishcontributionusaindependence.blogspot.com/

    Ralph Adamo on October 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm

I have never for the life of me figured out what the ouster of Mossadegh in Iran in the 50s had to do w/ the Islamic revolution in 1979. It’s not like the Ayatollahs admired anything that Mossadegh stood for.

Infidel on October 13, 2012 at 1:43 am

Also, the point of this movie is as lost as the point above about Mossadegh. If a narrator wants to show a female voiceover haranging us on some 1950s policy, as well as Jimmuh’s lecture, why show the story in b/w?

The movie would have made more sense by showing – from the Shia POV – first the Iranian revolution, then the consolidation of power in Syria by the Alawites, and then Shias slowly but surely becoming a majority on their own in Lebanon, and Hizbullah becoming the #1 power there. Now that would have had some bearing on what they showed at the beginning, although still false, and at the end, Jimmuh could have come out and blamed Reagam for all that. The movie would then have been one glorifying Islam (at least Shia Islam) w/o having any Infidel heroism sandwiched in b/w.

Infidel on October 13, 2012 at 3:07 am

I won’t watch any movie which has anti-American b.s. in it, no matter how good the rest of the movie is.

Jonathan E. Grant on October 13, 2012 at 11:29 am

This article is spot on–especially regarding the overall, unintended message of the movie.

There was another inintended message at the end of it, and that was Carter’s “open mic” monologue.

I’m no fan of Carter (that’s being way too kind) but I found his comments about refraining from taking credit for the message interesting and in stark contrast to Obamas sickening, unending football spiking over the Bin Laden killing, which Obama likely had very little to do with.

Overall, though, thethoughts that kept going through my mind while watching Argo were ‘look at the animals’ and ‘it’s amazing how history repeats itself.’

The primitive, disgusting pigs who invaded our emabassies in the 70s and recently can smell weakness, and that’s when they strike.

John Mullins on October 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm

My wife says that Keanu Afleck is cute

#1 Vato on October 13, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Debbie is spot on. I saw the film Saturday and cringed with the opening voice over and the Americans who burned the flag of Iran.

Because it was an Affleck/Clooney produced film, I kept thinking that I would have to do a lot of fact-checking today. I will do so.

Thanks Debbie. Look forward to reading your interview with Kevin, U.S. marine corp. veteran.

Diane M. Grassi on October 13, 2012 at 7:25 pm

    I have no intention to see this movie. For the sake of Hollywood the facts of the story were ignored. The Canadian Ambassador risked his life for the Americans he protected. And it was a Canadian initiative, working with the CIA . The preparatory work was done by Canadians. Not enough credit went to Canada for standing up with our friends the USA. But Hollywood loves to paint every confrontation as being the success it was because of the exclusive efforts of Americans. The true story is just as miraculous. There was no need to give it a distorted ending.

    Sheldon on October 13, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Did Affleck re-write history about the U.S. helping to overthrow a democratically elected government and in its place put the Shah in power??? Or are you the whiny right winger trying to re-write it? Stop your whining. Learn to believe in the American promise of democracy and equality and not in being some imperial power that puts corporate profits ahead of liberty and freedom. You shame the war of independence we fought by becoming that which we had to free ourselves from. The world calls us hypocrites now for what your kind are doing in the name of liberty and justice.

george on October 13, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    georgie, you clown, bugger off! Hamas in Gaza was “democratically elected” too. You think we should embrace it?

    For that matter, Hitler was “democratically elected” as well. While there were aspects of a coup as well, there was very clear mass support from the hinterland. Did the wrong side win WW2, you dufus?

    skzion on October 14, 2012 at 3:56 pm

I missed the credits at the very end but shared your thoughts regarding the villification of the shah at the beginning and the shock of a movie coming out of hollywood that depicted real events.

I kept thinking is this a portend of things to come. OK, I got a little excited.

Nevertheless, it was hollywood and having john goodman (big fat libtard) save the day kind of turned my stomach.

shmujew on October 14, 2012 at 4:08 am

You’re a terrible film critic and an even worse historian. You chose to ignore the indisputable fact that the U.S. and British governments sponsored a coup to remove a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader of a sovereign nation and replaced him with a de facto dictator.

The shah’s deposal led to a power vacuum that allowed Khomeini and the fundamentalists to seize power because the democratic secularists were marginalized by the shah.

The Iran coup is just one of many we have instigated in democratic nations. The right wing arrogantly continue to think that the US govt is blameless throughout history, when there is much evidence to suggest otherwise.

Don’t forget who first supported Bin Laden and the Taliban.

(Yes, I know the reason for the coup, call but ask yourself if would you would allow foreign interests to take over our natural resources)

Brian on October 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Brian’s another idiot. They all sound about the same, don’t they?

    Yes, we can tell that Muslims are always striving for “democracy,” as they just seem so dedicated to its principles, as shown in Egypt, Libya, Gaza, Malaysia, and so on. Brian, in the first place, “democracy” is a stupid and misleading term, which you would know if you knew anything about American political theory. The Founders didn’t want “democracy,” but a “republic.” Nowadays, we would call this mixed government a “democratic republic.” An election or two has nothing to do with this type of government.

    But let’s say–and this is nearly impossible–that Muslims actually created a democratic republic. (Nearly impossible, because Muslims can’t tolerate minorities or limited government.) Does it follow that such a government, if it acted aggressively against America, should be embraced?

    Now get back to Daily Kos and get some more ammo.

    skzion on October 14, 2012 at 4:03 pm

      “Now get back to Daily Kos and get some more ammo.” LOL

      Ralph Adamo on October 14, 2012 at 11:40 pm

Your post is almost useless.

You waste half of it debating semantics (you’re technically right about Democracy vs. Republic but the terms have been used interchangeably since Machiavelli’s time) and the remainder painting all Muslims as jihadists, (Ever hear of Turkey?) while ignoring my point of why people would want revenge against the USA.

I would love to see Sharia law fall in the middle east since I think medieval religions have no place in government. However Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent cases in point as to why armed intervention only exacerbates things. Iraq’s Christian community has been constantly attacked during the invasion, much like Lebanon’s due to the consequences of Israel’s incursions into the country.

As to your last point, the Iranians tried to negotiate a fairer deal to get more out of the UK and US drilling to no avail, thus forcing the hand of the impoverished government to nationalize in hopes of having any chance of lifting the Iranian poor out of poverty.Unlike you, I can admit when my country has erred, the US is not always right in its foreign relations.

In closing I would like to say that Reagan was a criminal who subverted the rule of Congress (how’s that for your republican checks and balances) when he ordered the sale of Weapons to Iran to finance the Contras

Brian on October 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Brian, I am praying a dyslexic Zombie comes after you for brains (and that poor, idiot zombie will not only be dyslexic but hungry as yours are long gone…) but until that time I wanna wallop you with a bit of your dumb thinking like that sock “Homey The Clown” carried around…

    “…and the remainder painting all Muslims as jihadists,…”

    FAIL. Jihadists want us killed but the so-called “moderates” also want the Jihadists to kill us, too.

    You just flunked the first absolute truth of this blog.

    Skunky on October 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Skunky and shmujew, your responses were excellent.

    Brian, allow me to explain. You presume that the US has violated some version of the Star Trek Prime Directive, in that it has interfered with the nascent democratic passions of Iranians, thus producing what we see in today’s Iran. This is nonsense.

    Muslims have no urge to be governed by Western-style systems, as such systems violate Islamic principles. It doesn’t matter, then, whether there was an election or a coup: the ultimate goal of Muslims is an Islamic government that shreds minority rights and individual dignity. There were no “democratic elections.”

    Muslims will always be savage peoples because Islam is a savage ideology. That is why the only way to deal with Muslims is to convert them to a real religion. Islam deserves the same respect that Nazism gets.

    No go away and ponder these things.

    skzion on October 15, 2012 at 12:01 am

    Skunky and shmujew, your responses were excellent.

    Brian, allow me to explain. You presume that the US has violated some version of the Star Trek Prime Directive, in that it has interfered with the nascent democratic passions of Iranians, thus producing what we see in today’s Iran. This is nonsense.

    Muslims have no urge to be governed by Western-style systems, as such systems violate Islamic principles. It doesn’t matter, then, whether there was an election or a coup: the ultimate goal of Muslims is an Islamic government that shreds minority rights and individual dignity. There were no “democratic elections.”

    Muslims will always be savage peoples because Islam is a savage ideology. That is why the only way to deal with Muslims is to convert them to a real religion. Islam deserves the same respect that Nazism gets.

    Now go away and ponder these things.

    skzion on October 15, 2012 at 12:02 am

Your post is almost useless. (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)

You waste half of it debating semantics (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)(you’re technically right about Democracy vs. Republic but the terms have been used interchangeably since Machiavelli’s time) and the remainder painting all Muslims as jihadists, (Ever hear of Turkey?) while ignoring my point of why people would want revenge (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)against the USA.

I would love to see Sharia law fall in the middle east since I think medieval religions have no place in government. However Afghanistan and Iraq are the most recent cases in point as to why armed intervention only exacerbates things(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!). Iraq’s Christian community has been constantly attacked during the invasion, much like Lebanon’s due to the consequences of Israel’s incursions into the country ISRAEL(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!).

As to your last point, the Iranians tried to negotiate a fairer(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!) deal to get more out of the UK and US drilling (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)to no avail, thus forcing the hand of the impoverished(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!) government to nationalize in hopes (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)of having any chance of lifting the Iranian poor (waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)out of poverty(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!).Unlike you, I can admit when my country has erred,(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!) the US is not always right in its foreign relations(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!).

In closing I would like to say that Reagan was a criminal(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!) who subverted the rule of Congress (how’s that for your republican checks and balances)(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!) when he ordered the sale of Weapons to Iran to finance the Contras(waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!)

shmujew on October 14, 2012 at 5:07 pm

The ignorance displayed within Debbie Schlussel’s piece runs deep. Between the implications of what is deemed a “leftist” or “Liberal” viewpoint versus anything “conservative” to her clouded perception of what is a “pro-american” viewpoint versus “anti-American. Not to mention the inability to see that this film not only depicts Iran in 79 as far more the violent, monolithic mob it was then, it has nothing to do with Iran today, a country which has not physically attacked another nation in over a century (unlike warlike America), and which has 0 nuclear weapons to USA spending more than half the world combined on such oppression of war & weapons under pretense of “fighting for freedom and security”. THAT is a “pro-American” viewpoint, NOT one extolling any “virtue” over USA’s wars, which have been self-destructive just as our founding fathers warned. Debbie states this film reiterated the “Islamic threat” which sounds like an alarmist believing all too much of the media manipulation we Americans have been fed by our TV channels, all owned by 1 of 6 war profiteering giants. Hoodwinked. How about thinking how this film was strategically placed before an election, in hopes of the naive American populace believing in exactly what Debbie does, the “Islamic threat” out there and rallying the angry massed to more self-destructive war?there is nothing even said here about USA’s aggressive foreign policy and how THAT is truly a “politically correct fantasy” as much as any oppression overseas. There is nothing “anti-American” about saying our foreign aggression is evil, and if anyone “hated Americans” back in 79 after we led the terror onto Vietnam, why would any other nations hate us more now after a decade of bombing nations for oil? Oh, wait, you think there is something “Patriotic” or “pro-American” about these actions? Then be sure your daughters become the soldiers of tomorrow, it won’t be our innocent sons fallen submissive. Let go of your misplaced anger Debbie, it’s exactly what the extremist regime within WANT to hold onto. Before you continue pointing fingers at all the “oppression” over there somewhere, take it from someone whom has traveled to every continent more than once, the oppression is growing here in USA by the day DUE to our own people continuing to think we need to “fight all the oppression over there” or the perceived “threats” that never were (communism, terrorism, Islamism, etc). Google Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA. Learn before you write.

openeyed American on October 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Let’s point out a flaw in your obviously deranged world view.

“our TV channels, all owned by 1 of 6 war profiteering giants”

CNN is owned by Time Warner. They don’t make any weapons.

Fox News is owned by News Corporation. They don’t make any weapons.

The majority owner of CBS is Sumner Murray Redstone, a media magnate. He doesn’t make weapons.

The New York Times & Washington Post are owned by their own respective corporations. They don’t make any weapons.

General Electric does have a minority ownership of NBC, and they do make weapons. So maybe that’s the exception that proves the rule? Otherwise you’re just spouting complete nonsense.

King Albert on October 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm

Jimmy Carter WAS the reason the hostages spent over 440 days in captivity.

Iran began freeing hostages 1 hour after Reagan took office.

Jimmy Carter was a horrible president. My mortgage had an 18% interest rate during his administration. The economy, our prestige among other nations suffered during his tenure.

Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

Rossmoor on November 5, 2012 at 5:41 pm

Just saw it this weekend, I found the movie incredibly patriotic – a demonstration of the smart, creative, and hardworking dedication that americans show in the face of tyranny. that we can overcome threats of death to our own citizens (who bizarrely placed themselves in a hostile situation) without, fortunately, having to always risk the lives of our soldiers, and that if we get through the bureacracy and political correctness, we have the capability of achieving great things even when we cannot publicly take credit for these things. yes, america is a selfless proud nation, that does not always drop bombs, contrary to european and islamic belief, and this movie shoes it well.

Adam on November 18, 2012 at 5:09 pm

This is the most ignorant, hate-filled movie review i’ve ever seen.

Shame on you Debbie!

Nicky on November 20, 2012 at 11:09 am

A Jewish journalist and descendant of Holocaust survivors doesn’t like a film that could portray ANY Muslim in a positive light. I am truly shocked. I didn’t think this film really showed any anti-American sentiment other than that which was obviously felt by the antagonists. But if you want to read more into it then that’s entirely your and your prejudiced admirers’ prerogative.

Kieran Lee on November 29, 2012 at 3:40 am

WOW! I was gonna go off on Debbie for her profound idiocy, but I’m glad to see some of you have already handled it. My favorite part is when she says “all Shi’ite Muslims) hate Jews” So typical of these closed/simple-minded, hate-filled, nutty right wingers. No different from the nuttiest of the jihadists claiming (or even thinking) all Christians hate Arabs. Just a profoundly stupid way to look at the world, but we constantly see it with the ignorant fox news crowd. We installed a government there, a bad one, and the people of that country overthrew it in favor of a religious one. That doesn’t make what they did or their current regime right of course, but it is A FACT and thinking that understanding that is America bashing or whining just makes you are simple minded fool. People who think like this are the American equivalent of Al-qaeda. Just patently hating what you don’t understand and scares you, simply blaming everything on the thing you don’t understand. Going so far as to fault those who would put the work in to gain an understanding of the subject matter. Its all very pathetic and the intellectually lazy and weak way to view humanity. More people should call you right wingers out, shame you for your childish view instead of trying to reason with the monkey-brained.

sorrowfully, but obviously WAY smarter than most of you (and Debbie) on January 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Oh, and Reagan gave that evil Islamic government weapons to get the hostages back, you left that out. Must have been an oversight since you’re obviously such a big fan of journalistic integrity. …or maybe your just an idiotic hypocrite.

sorrowfully, but obviously WAY smarter than most of you (and Debbie) on January 10, 2013 at 4:19 pm

One thing Debbie left out. Jimmy Carter bears responsibility for the fall of the Shah. He refused to support the Shah and American diplomats urged the Shah to abdicate. They actually thought Khomeini would be wonderful for Iran and no attempts were made to prevent the Ayatollah from using France as abase of operations.

Israeli intelligence did try to warn Carter about what was going on in Iran but to no avail.

Also, Admiral Turner, Jimmy Carter’s CIA Director, did to the CIA what Senator Hagel plans to do to the Pentagon – render it incapable of actually protecting America.

P: As a long time reader of this site, you should know that I’ve always blamed Jimmy Carter for helping depose and ushering out the Shah (even though I did not mention it in this review, and I should have–you are right). I’ve said so on this site and in media appearances many, many times. DS

Pete on February 3, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Ronald Reagan freed the hostages? Unless you mean by defeating JC at the polls, wouldn’t that be illegal? Why was a private citizen/presidential candidate negotiating with terrorists?

dances on pedals on February 21, 2013 at 11:17 am

Wow, what a bunch of B.S. to promote. Ambassador Taylor as well as President Carter have both said (on video I might add, you can look it up yourselves) that things did not happen as this movie portrays. Yes, the CIA had a bit part, that of making up a cover story (their wish but unnecessary as Canada already had a plan in place)for the hostages which they did while in the safety of the U.S. The Canadians merely risked their lives in sheltering the American hostages over in Tehran, arranged for false Canadian passports, set up the flight out, and also got intelligence to the American CIA to try to help them with the larger group of hostages in captivity. Tony Mendez spent all of 1.5 days in Iran… enough time to bring in his story and fly out with them (on a flight arranged by Canada) the next day. Oh ya, the CIA is the big hero here and the daily risk to their lives of the Canadians who hid them and orchestrated their rescue and worked to get information to the U.S. govt. to help with the other hostages as well…oh ya, that is just a tiny thing compared to Mendez and his movie cover story in the States. I’m very disappointed in the fact that it wasn’t enough to tell a fabulous story where credit could’ve been given where it was due, no, it had to be a big story about American heroics even though it wasn’t American heroics who saved those Americans. Guess we should know better by now. :p

Silk on February 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm

The article states that the diplomats were turned away by the British. This is a complete lie.

British and New Zealand diplomats were instrumental in protecting the diplomats. Ben Affleck has apologised for this ,and it was done for dramatic effect.
Typical Hollywood bs am afraid.

Steve on February 24, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Further to Steve’s comment. The American diplomats headed to the British Embassy but finding it also surrounded made their way to another British compound in the north of Tehran. Far from being turned away they were taken in. However the compound was far too dangerous for them to remain there and the British helped to disperse them to “safer” areas. The Canadians should be proud of the role they played but the Brits and the Kiwis did their bit.

John on February 26, 2013 at 6:31 am

A late comment -what no one ever asks is why Reagan, once the hostages were released, let the Iranians get away with their crime? He should have bombed all their military installations

Quasimodo on June 1, 2013 at 10:15 pm

Thanks to yet another anti-British warping of history via Hollywood the British diplomats who in reality risked their own lives to help their Americna colleagues are portrayed in a negative light in an American film. Next time just leave them to the mob if that’s all the thanks we get.

Jack from the UK on September 27, 2013 at 10:43 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field