A Fine Day, Part II

First...the Pats crush yet another opponent!



Second...my beloved Sox clinch a second World Championship in 4 seasons!



As much as was made about some supposed "Curse", methinks that a certain someone is back where he belongs after too many years of haunting the Bronx....



Hey George, how ya like them apples?!?

Whereforartthou Bruce Willis??

It has been two years since I read with great anticipation, Michael Yon's ongoing saga of embededment (Hey, new word!) with the "Deuce Four" in Mosul, Iraq. Better vivid depictions of men and battle cannot be found in any other media source, IMHO.



Upon their return home, I was excited to read that none other than Bruce Willis (an ardent supporter of the military) wanted to turn their story into a major motion picture. Given the dreck that passes for "war films" in present day, that would have been a much welcomed addition.

Alas, two years have passed and doing a brief search I can find no evidence that any "Deuce Four" movie project is on Willis' radar scope.

Instead, I read today that one thing that Willis will be doing is starring in an Oliver Stone picture called 'Pinkville', a 'drama' about My Lai. Yeah...because that's just what we need right now. A rehashing of a decades old anti-war cudgel of the left.

C'mon Bruce. Lets get things in gear! Produce an inspirational military movie (and factual to boot) for a time that needs just such positive inspiration.

Are you that hard up that you must help make an anti-war themed film before you can make a pro-military story of courage?

Or is it that no one in Hollywood wants to join you in that endeavor?

If that is the case Bruce, act like Michael Yon from whom you took your original inspiration. Break out on your own, to get the story told.

UPDATE: Here is some related good news from our friends at OPFOR, a movie (with Harrison Ford) to be based on 'No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah':

"One year after a shotgun blast full of Hollywood anti-war films tank at the BO, we get a nitty-gritty Blackhawk Down style flick that will (presumably) focus on the individual heroism and ultimate nobility of US Marines."

Amen!

Good War News....from Atlanta

I recently refreshed my Milblogroll (right side), as many of my regular "downrange" reads had rotated home from their respective wartime locations. One of the blogs I found was 'Bill and Bob's Excellent Afghan Adventure'.

Today Bob posts some good news from the war that he experienced himself firsthand....at the airport in Atlanta.

"...I wasn't prepared for what happened today.

As my flight from Cincinnati to Atlanta was beginning its descent, the flight attendant began her normal spiel about landing and gates, and assistance finding your connecting flights and so on. Then she announced that I was on board and on my way back to Afghanistan after spending two weeks with my family.

The plane erupted into applause. I was stunned."

But it doesn't stop there....

"They formed us into a line upstairs at the USO, probably 200 or more of us, and took us downstairs in two long lines. Soldiers and Marines paired two by two in a long line snaked through the airport towards the Army Personnel Command desk to do our formalities. As we wove through the airport, the throngs of travelers began to applaud.

I wasn't prepared for that, either. Again, I struggled not to lose it. It was like cracking the seal on a warm, freshly shaken coke. All the bubbles rush towards the cap, bringing the contents of the bottle along. That's what it felt like. I managed to keep all my fluids contained; but it was another close call. "

While these stories are not unique, I believe that this is a great demonstration that the public opinion battle over the war is not lost as some might want to claim. I am sure that not all of those applauding support the war in Iraq, and maybe not even the War on Terror, but were merely showing their respect.

But if the public opinion had truly been lost, I don't think we would see such public displays of support, even if the military is highly respected.

Success can breed further success. Staying the course with our current strategy can continue to bring good news, even if it isn't reported widely. If that continues, the next good news story from the war will be the news from home.....

A Fine Day!

Sorry Hugh....maybe next year. Cleveland will have a good young team for a few years....

But for now, it is the Sox who are CHAMPS!



Also, I heard that Brady guy did something today as well....

Red, White, & Blue

With all due respect to Hugh Hewitt.....

Real Men only support the Red, White & Blue.



Go Sox! Go Pats!

Anti-War Films 3 Years Too Late, Part II

In a follow-up to my post below, here is another example of an anti-war film being too late to the game.

This weekend marked the opening of a documentary titled "Meeting Resistance", which appears to delve into the 'root cause' of the insurgency in Iraq. (Trailer here)

"What would you do if your country was invaded? "Meeting Resistance" raises the veil of anonymity surrounding the Iraqi insurgency by meeting face to face with individuals who are passionately engaged in the struggle, and documenting for the very first time, the sentiments experienced and actions taken by a nation's citizens when their homeland is occupied. Voices that have previously not been heard, male and female, speak candidly about their motivations, hopes and goals, revealing a kaleidoscope of human perspectives. Featuring reflective, yet fervent conversations with active insurgents, "Meeting Resistance" is the missing puzzle piece in understanding the Iraq war. Directed by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham, this daring, eye-opening film provides unique insight into the personal narratives of people involved in the resistance exploding myth after myth about the war in Iraq and the Iraqis who participate. Through its unprecedented access to these clandestine groups, "Meeting Resistance" focuses the spotlight on the "other side" leaving the viewer with clarity as to why the violence in Iraq continues to this day."

Now, I will say this is an interesting premise, (and will overlook the fact that these US/UK filmmakers apparently had no interest in stopping their sources from killing US and British troops), but it is nothing we don't already know.

Let's see, they went and hung out in a former Husseini/Baathist stronghold, and consider it "eye-opening" that they would fight back against U.S.? That is "daring"!

Unfortunately, fate has thrown these filmmakers a big curve-ball.....

You see the production was filmed in 2003 and 2004, not recently. So the violence is high, but relevance of the testimony in it is now of diminished value. Much like most of the anti-war histrionics that have occured in Washington, the impact of this film was dependant upon continued and increasing violence from the 'resistance'.

It would appear to me that the filmmakers took their time in editing and releasing this documentary because they thought that by 2007 or 2008, it would serve to offer "unique insight" and "clarity" as to why the U.S. had lost the war. But as I said, fate can be a funny thing.

Somewhere along the way to the film's release, the very types of people who they feature as the 'resistance' changed their minds. If you want to see what many Baathist strongholds are actually like today, watch this, and then watch the trailer for the film again. Quite an interesting contrast, no? This film will serve to provide a first hand historical record of what went on between summer 2003 and summer 2006, but its intention to pass judgment on the war through a third party fails, since the pretext of 'resistance' has fallen dramatically. This film would have fit in perfectly in 2005/2006.

Want to take any bets on whether these filmmakers will go back an re-interview their subjects for "Meeting Resistance II: The Awakening"?

Anti-War Films 3 Years Too Late...

As has been noted by others in the blogosphere, this fall brings a cornucopia of Hollywood productions with a decidedly anti-war bent.

However, could it be that these films are really getting to the theater too late to achieve their intended ideological influence? I am inclined to say yes, given the events of the last six months. The minds of the American people, while somewhat sour to a protracted conflict, influenced by daily media emphasis on death rather than balance, have still not turned against the war.

Perhaps even the Hollywood PR talent realizes this too, given that they seem to be trying to sell Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" as a pro-war film.

I say this based on watching the ads and the trailers, which are crafted to display pride in joining the fight and asking the important questions:

"Do you win the war on terror? Yes or No? This is the quintessential 'Yes or No' question of our time. Yes or No?!"

To me that sounds very much like a challenge from a conservative to a liberal concerning this fight we are in. However, I will bet dollars to doughnuts that Redford's film will be nothing like the ads portray, and that his character will turn out to be the villain....

It is because they know that the tide is turning....

Video of General Sanchez (Ret)

So, you have been watching the news and saw some very select clips of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez and his views on the state of Iraq.

Well, perhaps you should watch the whole thing and see what the press forgot to tell you about....



You gotta love CSPAN....

Stand & Deliver

Hillary v. Adoption?

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit asks: IS HILLARY'S BABY-BOND IDEA ANTI-GAY?

He uses this question to set up the observation from 'Boi from Troy'

"I really did not think about Hillary Clinton’s $5000 Baby Bond proposal until seeing this poll by Daily Kos. . . . But if the Baby Bond is only available to families of newborns–what does that mean to gays and lesbians?"

Boy also notes later in his post:

"So, quite specifically, gay males are the only potential parents who are not eligible for the Baby Bond benefit."

Uh, Hello? What about straight adoptive parents? Under this standard, we would not be eligible either. (And yes, I am an adoptive father of a newborn) And while we are at it, lesbians couples who adopt (versus doing artificial insemination) would be in the same boat.

So, with all due respect to his overall point, I think Boi is being a little over-dramatic about the anti-gay aspect here.

Ultimately, I agree with what I think Boi's ultimate unspoken point was. If such a proposal were to be 'fair', it would include eligibility for parents in all adoptive circumstances (including those adoptions of older children) as long as no benefit has been previously established.

Adoption costs thousands of dollars up front not matter what the parent's orientation. Not allowing them to claim this benefit for their new child is discriminatory to everyone, most of all the child. Because in the end, the benefit belongs to the child, not the parents....