By Debbie Schlussel
Barack Hussein Obama claims he’s against racism, that he’s breaking racial barriers. But, actually, there’s a key element of his support that’s actually very racist. No, I’m not talking about the Black support Obama is getting. Yes, most of that is racist and solely based on like skin color.
I’m talking about the White Guilt Vote. Most of us already know that there is a significant group of Whites who are supporting Obama, solely because he’s Black, solely because it helps them alleviate their unfounded media-, education-, and Hollywood-generated sense of White Guilt. Saturday’s Wall Street Journal had an extensive front-page article, “Whites’ Great Hope?” about these White Guilt Voters (my term, not the Journal’s). Here are a few excerpts:

Barack Hussein Obama: Not Denouncing Racism . . . When It’s On His Side

Isaiah Oliver, a 24-year-old white social worker, grew up in this overwhelmingly white city and attended the predominantly white University of Richmond in Virginia. Ask him why he supports Barack Obama and he says it’s because of the candidate’s race.
“Because he’s black it makes me want to believe that he will change things,” says Mr. Oliver, leaving an Obama campaign rally here. “It feels like you are part of something that’s starting to change American politics. It’s the cool factor. He’s a rock star.”

So, only Black people will change things? Only Black people make this White guy fell like he’s part of something? Only Black people are cool? Only they are rock stars? Um, that’s racism, dude.

As he campaigns across the country, Sen. Obama, the son of a black father and a white mother, is both revealing and tapping into a changed racial landscape, especially among younger whites. After decades of often bitter polarization and racial tension on issues ranging from the spread of civil rights to affirmative action, many whites say they are drawn to Sen. Obama precisely because they think his mixed-race background reflects America’s increasingly diverse population and projects a more optimistic vision of the country’s racial future.
Sen. Obama’s candidacy, whether it succeeds or not, appears to mark a turning point in race and politics in America: It is prompting significant numbers of white Americans to consider voting for him not despite his racial background, but because of it. . . .
Sen. Obama and a new generation of black candidates are running campaigns that make whites feel good about themselves. These younger black politicians, including Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., are, like Sen. Obama, seen by many whites as proof of the country’s racial progress — and their own.
Sen. Obama “doesn’t steer away from race but makes sure that everything he does is influenced by his bi-racial identity,” says Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree, who knew Mr. Obama as a law student and is advising the campaign. . . .
The secret to Martin Luther King was that he flattered white Americans that you are better than you think you are,” says Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. “The very essence of Obama’s appealis the idea that he represents racial idealism — the idea that race is something that America can transcend. That’s a very appealing idea. A lot of Americans would truly love to find a black candidate they could comfortably vote for for President of the United States.”

Um, if you’re looking specifically for a Black candidate to vote for it’s no different than if you’re looking specifically for a White candidate to vote for. Racism is racism. You should be looking for the best candidate, period.
Sorry, but these White Guilt Voters–voting for Obama solely because of his skin color–are as bad as racists who will vote against him solely because of his skin color.
There is no difference. They are both racists. And, frankly, one group is no better than the other, either.

By Debbie Schlussel
Mazel Tov to the Muslims for coming up with an invention of something new and unique: a car. I don’t know how I got to those movie screenings, walking every day. But now, thank G-d, er . . . Allah, Muslims have come to the rescue and brought me into the 20th Century.
Oh, and it’s not just any old car. It’s a Muslim car. Yes, that means it is not made of pork, unlike our cars from Ford and GM. And no pigskin leather seating. That just wouldn’t be halal.
But never fear. The car will, indeed, feature special Islamic characteristics, like special compartments for a Koran or a hijab (Islamic woman’s headscarf). Hmmm . . . If it’s a Muslim car, why isn’t she covering her hair with that scarf, instead of stuffing it into a compartment when she’s out of view of her honor-killing father, brothers, and hubby/owner. Does it come with special homicide bombing compartments, too? Special bonus: a complimentary copy of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” comes with each purchase.

Civilization?: New Islamic Car to Replace Old Islamic Car
Yes, this is real–no joke. More details from the French Press Agency (AFP):

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (Agence France-Presse) – Malaysia, Iran and Turkey plan to build an “Islamic car” fitted with a compass to find the direction of Mecca and a compartment to hold a Koran, the Malaysian state news agency said.
Malaysian automaker Proton’s managing director, Syed Zainal Abidin Syed Mohamed Tahir, said during a visit to Tehran that the vehicle would be aimed at the global export market.
“We will identify a car that we can develop to be produced in Malaysia, Iran or Turkey,” he told the Bernama agency in a weekend report.
“The car will have all the Islamic features and should be meant for export purposes,” he said, adding that it would feature a compartment for holding prayer scarves and the Muslim holy book, the Koran.
Mr. Syed Zainal said the initiative for the vehicle had come from the Iranians. “What they want to do is to call that an Islamic car,” he said, giving no further details.
Proton announced last week that it had won an order to supply 5,000 units of its compact Waja model to be used as taxis in Tehran as part of a $200 million program to renew public transportation in the city.
Proton has been trying to kick-start its export market as it attempts to halt a sharp decline in domestic market share and stem a series of losses — attributed to a lack of new models and a reputation for poor quality.
It is in negotiations with German auto giant Volkswagen over an alliance that it hopes will turn its fortunes around.

Options–such as IEDs and GPS directions to Sears Tower, Vegas, nearest bridge, Disneyland, or other nearest potential infidel target–extra.
Congrats, Muslims for looking into inventing the car. I hear in about a century, you will join Al Gore’s great-grandson, Mohammed Al-Gore, and invent the Internet. Cellphones, two centuries from now, complete with compartments for beheading equipment.
I can’t wait!

By Debbie Schlussel
Remember Richard Wagner? The European composer was not only a well-known anti-Semite, but the Nazis played his music while they murdered hundreds of thousands of the 6 million Jews whose lives they snuffed out. He is not only considered an early proponent of the Holocaust decades before it began, but his influence over the Nazi National Socialist Party was enormous.
Now, there is an Arab, pan-Islamist version of Wagner. His name is Marcel Khalife. His plays and songs have served as inspiration for Hezbollah, Lebanese Communist, and Palestinian terrorists in their slaughter of innocent Israelis and Lebanese, including members of the South Lebanese Army (SLA) which fought off Hezbollah for many years. He praises “the Resistance”–yes, that resistance: Islamic terrorists–in everything he writes and performs.
Ironically, he is a “UNESCO Artist for Peace.” That means our U.S. funds that subsidize the United Nations go to this cretin to inspire more terrorist killings. But there’s more. He’s now on our shores.

Marcel Khalife: Terrorists’ Muse Glorifies the “Resistance”
Last night, this muse for barbarians was hosted at a meet and great at the tax-funded, Muslim-run, anti-Israel National Arab American Museum in Dearbornistan. Tonight, he is performing in concert at a tax-funded concert hall in Dearbornistan. And tomorrow night, he will perform in the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor.
In addition to the tax-funded propaganda museum, Khalife is also being hosted here by the tax-funded Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS–which gets millions in federal tax funds), and a number of other Muslim-dominated Arab organizations.
My peaceful, moderate Lebanese friends here in town are mortified and outraged. And they are shocked. How could a country that claims it is fighting the War on Terror, they ask, welcome this inspirer of terrorism onto our shores?
They point to one very stark example, among many others: Soha Beshara, a Lebanese Communist terrorist murderer and Hezbollah supporter who impersonated an aerobics instructor in order to get in close enough proximity to shoot Antoine Lahd, head of the South Lebanese Army. In late 1988, she shot him (but failed to kill him). She was in the Israeli-supervised El-Khiam prison, where she was scheduled for execution. Beshara told Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that she was inspired by Marcel Khalife:

When asked about her last wish before her execution, she said that she would “sing a song by [Lebanese singer] Marcel Khalife, a song that glorifies the Resistance.”

Ironically, the article about her from Al-Ahram is reprinted on the Dearbornistan-based Bint Jbeil website (as I’ve repeatedly noted, Bint Jbeil is the Hezbollah stronghold in South Lebanon where most of the Shi’ite Lebanese Muslims in Dearbornistan come from).
Unfortunately, the Israelis released Soha Beshara from prison after 10 years. But, at least, she is not here on our shores . . . for now.
Disturbingly, the man who inspired her violent acts is. And you are helping subsidize Marcel Khalife with your taxes.
As one Lebanese friend of mine remarked:

I am wondering who invited Marcel Khalife to Michigan. He is to perform two concerts, one in Ann Arbor and one in Dearborn. He is well known in Lebanon and I know as others that he is a member of the Communist party and all of his songs and plays were in the support of terrorist groups against the SLA and Israel. Funny world!!!!!

Yes, and not just funny. Frightening.

By Debbie Schlussel
Gee, this is a fight–like Donald v. Rosie–that I wish could go on forever: Fabio v. George Clooney. And at the center of it, George Clooney thinks it’s all about him. That’s how this male catfight got started:

George Clooney and romance icon Fabio stunned diners at Hollywood’s swanky Madeo restaurant on Friday, when they exchanged fighting words over a photo session.
Actor Fabio was dining with friends when one stood to take photos close to a table Clooney was sharing with his girlfriend Sarah Larson.

Kramer v. Kramer: George Clooney Feuds With Fabio

According to In Touch Weekly magazine, Clooney thought the photographer was trying to take shots of him and asked her to stop — a request that annoyed his fellow diner.
The magazine reports Fabio went over to Clooney’s table to explain, but the conversation became heated, and the long-haired actor was overheard telling the “Ocean’s Eleven” star, “I thought you were a nice guy. Stop being a diva!”
The encounter reportedly prompted angry Clooney to stand up and approach Fabio.
An eyewitness tells In Touch, “The waiters broke it up before it got out of hand.
“George looked annoyed. … George was drinking but he wasn’t drunk.”
Clooney reportedly skipped the rest of his meal, asked for his bill and left.
Fabio’s manager has refused to comment about the incident, but says, “George is lucky he didn’t end up in the ER.”

Nothing better than a girlie-man like Fabio almost beating up a liberal fascist like George Clooney.
Please, keep it comin’!

By Debbie Schlussel
Readers of this site know that I am a fan of Jimmy Kimmel writer/comedian Anthony “Tony” Barbieri a/k/a “Jake Byrd.” I especially liked his Paris Hilton “courtside” appearances. The funniest thing about him is not his utter hilariousness, but that the media idiots (not just CNN and MSNBC, but, yes, FOX News, too) fall for him being a real person. He ain’t.
Even though Kimmel is in re-runs due to the Hollywood writer’s strike, Kimmel replayed this show on Monday Night, and it’s very timely. Watch the WHOLE video and laugh your rear off!:

Thank you, Joe Pesci.
More Hilarious Jake Byrd Videos, Here.

By Debbie Schlussel
This weekend’s new movie fare includes two revisits from the past and a few new:
* “Lions for Lambs“: Read my full review here. Pure Robert Redford anti-war agitprop and very boring at that. Getting really tired of the “Traffic” mode of movies, where three separate stories connect. Come up with something new. A smug, caricature right-wing Senator (Tom Cruise) gives a liberal reporter (Meryl Streep) a scoop on a new strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, “Forward Operating Points.” She doesn’t buy that it’s anything new and has a two hour argument over the War in Iraq with him. Meanwhile, two of the soldiers carrying out the new plan–a Black and a Hispanic–are shot down in the mountains of Afghanistan and surrounded by Taliban Mujahideen. Meanwhile, their former college professor (Robert Redford) is lecturing a failing slacker student about them and about how he’s not doing his part, while minorities are dying in Iraq. The End. Again, Read my complete review.

* “Blade Runner: The Final Cut“: This is only in New York and Los Angeles, but in the rest of the country by next Friday. When I recently previewed this movie on this site, readers surmised that it is no different than the “Director’s Cut” of the original “Blade Runner.” And they were basically right. The special effects of the original movie were so ahead of their time that there was little that needed to be done to improve upon the original.
A few changes involve using the real (but very aged) Joanna Cassidy to play her own stunt double instead of a man, when she crashes through plate glass. A few minor errors in dialogue are fixed. Some advertisers in product placement on buildings were removed, but not Coca-Cola and the now-defunct Pan-Am. Guess it gets reborn in 2019? And that’s about it for the differences. Still, I loved seeing this movie on a giant screen, where it was meant to be seen. Seeing it on DVD at home simply does not compare.
I love this movie so much that even though it is basically an updated version of an old movie, it goes on my TOP TEN MOVIES OF THE YEAR list, with an asterisk for obvious reasons. Well worth the ten bucks to see it again in the theater, even if you remember it well. Mostly playing at arthouse movie theaters, including the Landmark chain owned by Mark Cuban.
So, is Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard a replicant? It seems like it, now more than ever. What do you think?

* “Fred Claus“: Did you know Santa has a loser older brother with a great sense of humor? He does, and he’s Vince Vaugh a/k/a Fred (Santa is a fat-suit-wardrobed Paul Giamatti). Like most dysfunctional families, they have their differences, and this year, Santa can’t put up with them, since he has an efficiency consultant breathing down his neck and trying to put the North Pole out of biz.
Not sure how they managed it, but even Roger Clinton–troublesome bro of Bill Clinton and Bro-in-Law of Hillary Rodham Cankles is in this. Frank Stallone is in it, too, as is one of the Baldwin Brothers. Yes, your kids won’t get that part. That’s in it for you, as you’re accompanying them to the theater. The same goes for when “Santa” visits an Orthodox Jewish family, a scene I loved. “Shalaam or Shaloobi or whatever.”
I liked this movie a lot because of Vince Vaughn. He’s his usual hilarious self here. Consider it a cleaner version of the guy he played in “The Wedding Crashers,” but suitable for children’s viewing. When we meet Fred Claus, he’s a ne’er-do-well trying to get $50,000 to open a betting parlor in Chicago. His meter-maid girlfriend is about to dump him over neglect, and he’s on he’s on his way to the North Pole to earn his 50 Gs from bro Santa.
The ending (er, five endings) was a little too neat and cheesy, but still, the movie presents a great message of family and reconciliation between estranged siblings. Great for your kids and enjoyable for you. The one prob I had with this movie was that it was waaaaaaaay too long. It was two hours and could have been a half-hour shorter. It ended like five times–five false alarms before it finally ended. That was unnecessary, as was the non-speaking father of Santa. Boy was he whipped by Santa’s mom (Kathy Bates). Still Vince Vaughn’s humor makes up for it.
* “P2“: The best horror movies and thrillers involve psychological scare tactics, not blood and gore. This one started out with the former, but, sadly, degraded with a very gruesome, violent, bloody torture-murder scene it could have done without. Other than that, I liked it. But that scene makes the movie unwatchable and insufferable. It simply wasn’t necessary.
A young woman is the last to leave her New York City office building on Christmas Eve. When she gets to the second parking level–P2–where her car is parked, it won’t start. At first, she seeks the night-time parking attendant’s help. But soon she learns he is the reason she’s stuck there and he terrorizes her as she tries to survive him and his violent dog.
There are no big names or even semi-names in this, which adds to the movie, because you focus on the story, not the actors. The biggest actor, really, is the parking garage, where the movie mostly takes place. Also, very well shot and full of suspense.
Definitely not for kids. At all.

* “Sleuth“: This is a remake of the early 1972 film which starred Michael Caine as a young man who’s stolen away the wife of a rich man. The man lures him to his house. This version stars Caine as the rich man and Jude Law as the young man. But where the first version was a classic, this one is too emotional and overwrought. Plus, we can smell the plot twist a mile away. What was novel in 1972, is tired, haggard, and obvious in 2007. In this one, too, it tries to compensate for that with a sleek, uber-contemporary house that comprises the set. But the house becomes too much the star of the movie. This one is entertaining enough. But the original is not matched with the newer, more tweaked and gay-ized story. This is mildly entertaining, but the 35-year-old version is more worthy. Rent it instead.

By Debbie Schlussel
So much for the party of the uber-tolerant. As many of us have long known, they’re not actually so tolerant.
Do 20% of Democratic voters hate Italians? Sure looks like it, based on the results of a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll of likely Democratic voters. One in Five say we’re not ready for an Italian Prez:
One in five Democrats and independents say country isn’t ready for an Italian-American president; one in four Republicans and independents say America isn’t ready for a woman president.
Well, thank goodness for Hillary Rodham Cankles that she is neither Italian nor a woman. Not too worried that Rudy is not a chick. Very worried that Hillary isn’t, though.
Read the complete poll.

By Debbie Schlussel
The snowball is gathing steam and mass rolling down the mountain, and The ICE Princess can’t stop it, despite her pathetic and absurd attempts.
Yesterday, for the first time I can remember, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and I concurred. He told the press that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Chieftess Julie L. Myers a/k/a “The ICE Princess” must go and that it’s time for the Bush Administration to pull her fast-sinking nomination. Well, a broken clock is, indeed, right a couple times a day, even if the clock is right for the wrong reasons–she should’ve already been gone for national security versus incompetence reasons:

Myers Gave Blackface Award to the Guy in Stripes, in Back

Majority Leader Harry Reid is saying that the White House may want to reconsider its support for the embattled administrator.
“I believe that people who serve in government should be sensitive to religious issues, racial issues – personal issues,” Reid told reporters today. “And from what I know about the Halloween party, this woman was involved in awarding a prize to something that I think was very insensitive to what our country’s trying to work through.
“I personally would take a real close look at that before we are able to go the mat,” he said. “I think the White House should really take another look at this person.”

FYI, a person who was at another party with the blackface-costumed employee posted a pic on his/her blog (pictured above), though you can hardly see the guy. Besides, I want to see the pic of Myers posing with the guy–the pic she “accidentally” deleted. That’s the important pic (please send it, if you have it). I’m not too concerned with the costume-wearer. I’m concerned with the head of his agency who has absolutely no scruples, common sense, or basic decency or integrity.
Meanwhile, several ICE Agents contacted me to talk about the annoying 1.5 hour of sensitivity training The ICE Princess forced them to go through, yesterday. They had to take a diversity test online.
Call me stupid, but isn’t the person who was involved in the racism–and claims she hadn’t a clue–supposed to be the one who undergoes the sensitivtity training? Hello . . . ?
Just asking.
She already got her “diversity” test. She failed.
Buh-Bye, ICE Princess. Fare Thee Well (well, not really).

By Debbie Schlussel
My friend, Detroit Newsistan film critic Tom Long–an unabashed, but thoughtful, liberal–has an interesting piece denoting what you, my readers, and I have been noting: American audiences don’t want anti-war movies.
Unfortunately, Tom uses the general term “war on terror movies,” but what he’s really referring to is this non-stop series of left-wing anti-war movies. Americans like War on Terror movies, where we are the good guys, as in real life. But Hollywood isn’t making those. What we don’t like and won’t patronize are movies that are anti-war and/or anti-American, and that’s what we’re getting en masse from Tinseltown.

And as he notes, since they are financially bombing at the box office, that, unfortunately, isn’t yet causing Hollywood to stop making them. But I think they will have to . . . or at least make less of them. The bottom line has always been and important constraint, eventually, even in Hollywood. They are in it for their mansions and luxury sportscars. You can’t fund a lavish vacation in Monaco on the massive net loss deservedly suffered by “The Kingdom.”
And I strongly disagree with Long’s conclusion that more of these movies are needed. None of them are needed. They are damaging to America in so many ways. But I like Long’s rundown on the movies that have failed–every single one is anti-American, a fact he fails to note.
An excerpt:

‘No more war! No more war! No more war!”
The cry of protestors outside the White House?
No, the cry of movie audiences across America.
Today, “Lions for Lambs,” another film about the ongoing war on terror, opens in theaters. By Monday it should be the latest flop about the ongoing war on terror.
This despite the inclusion of three Big Hollywood Names in the cast: Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep and Robert Redford, who also directs the film.
Then again, Reese Witherspoon is a big name. But even Ms. Legally Blonde couldn’t help “Rendition,” the mid-October entry concerning torture and illegal interrogation that has so far earned a pitiful $9.3 million.
The average film starring Witherspoon earns about four times that much, according to boxofficemojo.com.
It’s very doubtful that Reese suddenly became unpopular, especially since she just took home an Oscar two years back for “Walk the Line.”
No, it’s the subject matter. American audiences have been voting against war-on-terror movies all year.

No, they’ve been voting against anti-war-on-terror films. That’s an important distinction.
When Hollywood starts making movies like “The Delta Force” again–where we fight back and win against Islamic terrorists who wrongly murdered innocent Americans–we’ll go see them. (And, no, I’m not joking. “Delta Force” accurately depicts the Hezbollah hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and murder of Navy Diver Robert Stethem. Go rent it. You’ll see it’s a very under-rated and unfairly panned movie.)
As long as we’re told by the silver screen that we are equal to the bad guys or even worse than them, we’ll stay home.

By Debbie Schlussel
Benjamin Disraeli–and later Mark Twain–said there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. But today, there are lies, damn lies, and anti-war movies.
The latest didactic, silver screen mythology emanating from Hollywood is “Lions for Lambs,” starring (and directed by) Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep, and in theaters today. The film’s rewriting of history and Middle Eastern religious dynamics is disturbing. And its statements about our military and alleged racism are unconscionable.
As Americans get more and more of their “history” from on-screen fiction, the fairy tales this film puts forth are dangerous in their blatant falsehood.

A constant theme throughout this boring movie is that American military and political leaders–a smug, right-wing caricature, Republican Senator played by Cruise and an Army commander played by Peter Berg–maintain that Sunnis and Shi’ites are working together against American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something neither soldiers nor a liberal TV reporter played by Streep can believe.
Streep’s Janine Roth and two soldiers on whom the movie focuses constantly question this allegation as utterly preposterous. Reporter Streep tells Senator Tom Cruise she can’t believe that after centuries of fighting each other, Sunnis and Shias are suddenly working together against us.
The purpose of this constant on-screen ridicule of the notion of a Sunni-Shi’ite alliance against the West is to ridicule the Bush Administration’s positing of the same regarding Iraq. But, it’s not ridiculous at all.
Reality check: Sunnis and Shias have worked together against their common enemy–the West–for decades. That the movie questions this fact as preposterous is, well . . . preposterous. Here are just some of the many instances in which the two religious sects have, indeed, worked together in terrorist operations and plots against America:
* Intelligence reports and eyewitness accounts from the 1983 Hezbollah (Sh’ite) bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut state that P.L.O. (Sunni) operatives machine-gunned and shot at Marines as they tried to flee the barracks.
* Yahya Ayyash, HAMAS’ chief bombmaker who was known as “The Engineer” (and was a Sunni), received much of his bombmaking training from Hezbollah (Shia) in Lebanon. He repeatedly worked with Hezbollah for years before he was assassinated by Israel in 1996.
* The June 1998 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was a joint Al-Qaeda (Sunni)/Hezbollah (Shia) operation.
* In October 2005, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that evidence ties Al-Qaeda insurgent IEDs in Iraq to Shi’ite Iran or Hezbollah. “There are certain pieces of information that lead us back either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah,” he said.
* In July 2006, Assem Hammoud a/k/a Amir Al-Andalousi, a Shi’ite Muslim from a prominent South Lebanese family of Hezbollah supporters, was arrested in Lebanon, after a stint in Canada as the ringleader of an Al-Qaeda (Sunni) plot to bomb several PATH train tunnels between New Jersey and Manhattan and murder thousands of commuters. Several of his cousins in the Hammoud family in Dearborn, Michigan were convicted in cigarette smuggling and money-laundering for (Shi’ite) Hezbollah.
That the Shi’ite Assem Hammoud trained with Al-Qaeda at Ein El-Hilweh, a Sunni Palestinian refugee camp (a U.S. taxpayer/UNRWA-funded entity) in Lebanon, is yet more refutation of the “Lions for Lambs” myth.
* A July 2007 report by Chagai Hoberman of Israeli newspaper HaZofe quotes Israeli Security Services sources as saying that Hezbollah (Shi’ite) now controls Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (Sunni) in the West Bank. The sources said that they picked up Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorists in West Bank cities, like Shechem, over the past several years, who received weapons, money, and training from Hezbollah. In addition, they say Hezbollah controls the terrorist group, now.
Then, there is the other constant lie throughout “Lions for Lambs”–that American soldiers fighting in Iraq are mostly minorities, who have no choice but to join up and die.
Sure, viewers are shown white commanding officers who command and watch from a distance, and who are viciously attacked as “pieces of s**t” and “lambs” leading lions in a monologue by a college professor played by Robert Redford. But the film centers on two minority soldiers–a Black and a Hispanic–who were Professor Redford’s students. We’re told that minorities have no choice but to join the military. “They play football to go to college,” Professor Redford admonishes one of his more privileged, slacker White students. They have no future or talent and are ridiculed by the White students on campus, so they must join up:

They weren’t naturally gifted students. . . . The first ones to sign up are the ones whose country doesn’t treat too well. The ones like you and me who went to good schools and were privileged like you and me, we’re the first ones to step back when the country’s looking for volunteers

lectures Professor Redford of Sundance University.
His White privileged slacker student responds that he doesn’t have to care about this

because I wanna live the good life because I’m smart enough.

While “Lions for Lambs” wants to portray our fighting forces as strictly minorities and Whites as slacker frat boys who stay home, the two soldiers in the movie are commissioned men, who go upon graduation. And the fact is, the majority of those are White, not minorities. They all have college degrees, many of them graduate degrees. They are among America’s best and brightest, who chose to go to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of starting their promising careers in the comfort of home.
One of those is Sgt. James John Regan, a star on the Duke Lacrosse Team, who had a scholarship to go to law school and an offer to work at a financial company. Instead, he joined the Army Rangers and served double tours of duty in both Afghanistan and Iraq, earning a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart and several other medals. He was killed in action in Iraq, early this year. He was 26 and engaged to be married. His fiancee, Mary McHugh told Newsday that he felt it was imperative to join the Army and serve rather than taking one of the other safer, more lucrative offers:

He said, “If I don’t do it, then who will do it?” He recognized it as an option and he couldn’t not do it.

And there are so many other non-minority soldiers like him who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan, contrary to this movie’s Redfordian claim.
But that doesn’t fit with the myth that Robert Redford, Ph.D. and the rest of the “Lions for Lambs” gang is selling.
If there is any truth to this movie, it’s the poignant heroism to the end displayed by the two soldiers portrayed in the film. But even that is not enough to justify the myths throughout this film.
At the end of the movie, Reporter Meryl Streep argues with her TV cable news network boss that Iraq is like Vietnam, and she doesn’t believe our efforts to succeed will work so she doesn’t want to report on them:

It’s like that song by The Who. “Meet the new boss. It’s the same as the old boss.” It’s the same as Vietnam all over again.

Streep’s network boss orders her to report on it:

Sounds like he [Senator Tom Cruise] has a plan to destroy the guys who attacked our guys. . . . Our viewers will believe that’s a good thing.

If only Hollywood believed it was a good thing.
And if only there was a single news exec for a major TV network news operation who ever uttered such a sentiment.