Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist

June 14, 2007

No End in Sight

Filed under: Film,Iraq — louisproyect @ 3:28 pm

Last Monday night I made the mistake of attending a press screening for “No End in Sight,” a documentary about the war in Iraq. Expecting a hard-hitting denunciation of U.S. foreign policy, I was instead treated to 102 minutes of people like Richard Armitage, Samantha Power and George Packer explaining why things turned sour. All in all, I felt like I was watching the PBS News Hour but without even the token appearance of a leftist like Juan Cole.

Director Charles Ferguson, upset over blunders in Iraq

The movie is just another example of the “what went wrong” mentality that occurs when an imperialist invasion fails to achieve its stated goals. After Vietnam proved to be unwinnable, “peace politicians” began to speechify about the “tragedy.” If LBJ had been able to accomplish his goals, as he had in the Dominican Republic, there never would have been a peep out of them.

“No End in Sight” hardly goes into the criminality of the invasion, as do many inside-the-beltway studies like Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco.” There is no hand-wringing over nonexistent WMD’s or alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. This is not to speak of the film’s utter refusal to even question American material interests in the region, including the desire to control oil. This obviously flows from the worldview of director Charles Ferguson, who has a PhD in political science from MIT and who went on to consult for the White House and the Department of Defense. He is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This is not exactly the sort of person who will even entertain the idea that the U.S. does not have a right to impose its will on other peoples. His main interest is in figuring out why such a project did not work so as to help the ruling class figure out how to do it better next time.

Drawing upon the dubious insights of General Jay Garner, the head of Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), who was eventually replaced by the infamous Paul Bremer, the film argues that there were three fundamental mistakes:

1. The U.S. failed to pull together a puppet (my word obviously) government in a timely fashion.

2. It decided to purge the bureaucracy of all Baath party members.

3. It dissolved the Iraqi army.

If these mistakes hadn’t occurred, things would be proceeding swimmingly. That at least is the impression that the rogue’s gallery of interviewees intend to communicate. One of them is Colonel Paul Hughes, who recounts how he wanted to beat down George W. Bush’s door to warn him about the consequences of dissolving the Iraqi army. One imagines that in Mr. Ferguson’s insular little but powerful world, Paul Hughes plays the same role that Martin Luther King Jr. played in ours. Nowadays Hughes is involved with the United States Institute of Peace, an outfit that is run by Chester A. Crocker, who was Ronald Reagan’s Undersecretary of State, a position that surely earned him the qualifications to promote world peace, as long as we understand this as the peace of the graveyard.

Belgrade passenger train destroyed by NATO bomb

At least with Paul Hughes, there can be no confusion about what he stands for. He is careerist military bureaucrat who grieves now over the fact that Iraq does not resemble Jordan. But it is characters like Samantha Powers and George Packer who nearly had me bolting from my seat. Powers and Packer made a career out of promoting “humanitarian interventions” from their roosts at Harvard University and the New Yorker Magazine respectively. Both were deeply involved in pushing for war in Yugoslavia and are mainly upset today because Bush was not as adroit as Clinton in bending the will of a foreign population to our aims. They see Bosnia and Kosovo as big success stories, even if it was accomplished through war crimes such as destroying passenger trains and the human beings within.

Obviously not recommended.

32 Comments »

  1. Thanks for the warning. These people sound like what Noam Chomsky described forty years ago in “American Power and the New Mandarins” with regards to the Vietnam War. For them, the morality of the war was never in question. The problem was that America wasn’t winning.

    Samantha Power is especially atrocious. Check out her NYTimes review of “Hegemony and Survival” from a few years back, which was filled with (mostly dishonest) cheap shots.

    Comment by dws — June 14, 2007 @ 5:37 pm

  2. Thanks for the review. Clearly no point in watching except perhaps as an example of thinking of various groups in support of war and occupation and violation of law and human rights.

    Powers, in particular, is a fraud, who can never bring herself to analyze war crimes and mass murder when it is committed by “our” (that is, her) side.

    I don’t know if or whether Juan Cole is leftist or not. But he is honest and respects facts and makes an effort to understand history and resist distortions. That’s why, for the most part he is ignored in the mainstream media.

    Comment by Tanweer Akram — June 15, 2007 @ 12:52 am

  3. You have the WRONG Charles Ferguson. The photo above is of another person named Charles Ferguson. The director received his undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley, NOT the naval academy. It seems you have conflated the biographical information of the two Charles Fergusons. By basing your assumption about the director’s “worldview” on incorrect information (the correct information can easily found on the web by the way), most of your post is made worthless.

    Comment by Ted — June 15, 2007 @ 3:36 pm

  4. Thanks for the correction, Ted. Apparently there are two imperialist skunks at the CFR named Charles Ferguson. As for my post being “worthless,” I assume that you are another feckless cheerleader for the war in Iraq. It doesn’t matter if Charles Ferguson was a Catholic priest or a juggler or a gourmet chef. The war in Iraq is criminal and any movie that refuses to examine this aspect is criminal itself.

    Comment by louisproyect — June 15, 2007 @ 4:46 pm

  5. You missed the whole point of the movie. “No End in Sight” cuts deep into examining a crime when it became a “continuous” one (if you are at all familiar with that term), i.e. once that crime was committed (i.e. Iraq invaded), there was “no end” [to it] “in sight.” If the other movies (mentioned by you) already address the reasons, or lack thereof, for the war, why be redundant and make another one. Very interestingly, your critique seems to imply that if the “WMD’s” were “existent” or “ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda” were in place, the invasion would have been justified!?!?!??!?! Likewise (and very disturbingly so), your critique is based on the assumption that wars are to be “lost” or “won” thereby completely defeating your so strongly proclaimed anti-war position. A war is a crime is a crime. The invasion of Iraq was obviously a crime, but the invasion could have stopped short of destroying a whole country and a phenomenal cultural heritage — this is where “No End In Sight” delivers a punch, a hard one at that, in the face of the administration responsible for the war. And, I can’t help but notice the opposition to the war by the very makers of “No End In Sight” — it pours out of the movie itself and much info on the web.

    Comment by kgc — June 18, 2007 @ 12:09 am

  6. “If the other movies (mentioned by you) already address the reasons, or lack thereof, for the war, why be redundant and make another one.”

    Actually, I would make an entirely different documentary from this one and from the other more laudable ones that at least demonstrate the horrors of the war, even if they are short on analysis (“The Ground Truth” and “My Country, My Country” are two of the better ones.) My approach would be to go into the history–with T.E. Lawrence, the CIA support for Saddam’s coup, the role of oil, the Shia-Sunni-Kurd differences, etc. I wouldn’t have bothered with Richard “Festus” Armitage, but would have interviewed somebody like Robert Fisk.

    Comment by Louis Proyect — June 18, 2007 @ 1:08 am

  7. The Crime was the decision to go to War.

    The Occupation was the After Crime.

    Comment by Marcaurelius — July 24, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

  8. I broadly agree with your assessment. That being said, I have only seen the trailers on PBS.org and listened to the interview with Mr. Ferguson today (7/24) on NPR – which is why I’m here, trolling for thoughts on this documentary. I am a 12-year veteran of the US Navy (Submarines), and given my (rather limited) tactical and strategic understanding of the world, find it hard to believe these people could be so arrogant and so ignorant at the same time (I am accustomed to arrogance parading about with some modicum of ability). I have felt from the beginning (Nov 2000) that we were in for a train wreck when we elected” someone with so little respect for science, rationality and the separation of church and state. But to paraphrase GBS, we got what we deserved. Needless to say, I didn’t vote for GWB, but would have opposed WJC on this for the same reasons. Truly Sad in Maryland

    Comment by Dan Meenan — July 24, 2007 @ 8:25 pm

  9. It seems sad that anyone would disparage the aspirations of this documentary. After all the suffering imposed by the US on a people ( and the US army people who were also “imposed” on a fruitless mission) who are inarguably innocent of any wrongdoing against the US, yet another Documentary which lifts the skirts of unbelievable arrogance is dismissed as “the “what went wrong” mentality that occurs when an imperialist invasion fails to achieve its stated goals”.

    Sorry, but they need a bit more credit here for what they accomplished.

    Great lord, the emphasis should be on Kudos! Lets start the trials!

    Comment by quanta — July 25, 2007 @ 1:14 am

  10. SoS/Gnrl Colin Powell tried to warn us about what was going on but like the “good soldier” he carried out the orders of his “commander-in chief, with that blatent lie at the UN. As a veteran of World War II I’m reminded of what those members of the Nazi hiearchy bleated at their Nurenburg Trials. To his (Colin’s) credit he refused to reeinlist for a second term. One wonders why Condi didn’t follow him. Instead of suceeding him as SoS, thus tarnishing that promising career and reputation as a political “comer” on the DC scene, (sigh)

    Comment by Jim Harris — July 25, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

  11. In my estimtion, this whole trend of thinking is Orwellian. Of course the Pentagon has succeeded. What was the goal? The real goal, I mean. Was it not to destroy Iraq? To have its people kill each other instead of Israel’s or the U.S. military doing ALL of the killing. It is an excellent success from their standpoint. Send in drones to kill boths sides, albeit, three sides: Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis. Throw the victims in their own areas so then spin the truth to make the people blame each other. Where are the 14,000 Iraqi inmates in the secret jails? Does anybody know where their loved ones are? So if they kill and torture and behead 50 here, 40 there, 10 here. Blow up a market there with a computer propelled car from 5 blocks away, throw the bodies helterskelter, then feed the ignorant media total falsehood. Is that not winning?

    Now they are progressing to Iran, occasionally turning their serpent heads towards Syria, burning a slow war in Lebanon and Somalia. Hey. Congrats! War mongers. May you and your burn in hell. We all pay for our misdeeds, or our children do, eventually.

    They, the Pentagon, the Zionists, the capitalist hog warmongers, are on task.

    Comment by JHGustafson — July 31, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

  12. Charles H. Ferguson is the director of this film,
    (Ph.D from MIT, Silicon Valley millionaire, maker of Microsoft FrontPage, on the Council for Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution fellow, board of directors American-French Foundation) there is another Charles D. Ferguson who is also a policy wonk, but not the director of this film.

    I knew Charles a few years ago and he is actually far from the left. When I mentioned Noam Chomsky in conversation with him once, he basically said that “it was a problem”. He’s actually a real jerk with a terrible temper and just generally impossible to know for long periods of time. As for why he made this film, Charles is chummy with the likes of John Kerry and most of the former Clinton administration – listen to his video interviews on this film very, very closely. He basically says that the US will go to war again in the future (and given that he’s on the Council for Foreign Relations, I guess he would know) and he made this film so that when the US does go to war again, these mistake won’t be made again.
    What he’s essentially doing is giving out a correction sheet of what not to do, for the next inevitable time the US does decide to invade another country (hint, hint to the Democrats). And guess who stands to benefit in case of another invasion. I should also mention that Charles is Jewish and quite pro-Israel. How many guesses do you want to figure out which will be the “next time” we go to war? No mention of how immoral that is, how insanely imperialistic that is, how there is also a latent racism in these policies, none of that is touched or looked upon at all. Why? Because these guys like Charles, industrialists and policy makers are a cabal and work to benefit each other and each other only, what very little they give to charities and foundations is basically pocket lint when compared to their other fortunes, and the little, brown guy in another country be damned.
    Charles has also admitted that when the war first started, he was for it, the only reason he’s made this movie is this war has seriously damaged how the US is seen overseas and it’s credibility now and the fact that we’re losing miserably. Had the States been winning, this film would never have happened and Charles would have probably started on his film of people talking about love and relationships, no doubt based on the Playboy bunnies he’s dated.

    Comment by Melissa — August 15, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

  13. The entire premise of your review appears to be that if you get some neo-cons in to talk about the failures of a neo-con strategy, that makes it not worth watching.

    Shit, the PBS Frontline episode on the same subject, prompted by and featuring Rick’s writings in Fiasco, features practically nothing but neo-cons and military hawks.

    That not worth anyone’s time either, along with Rick’s book for the same reason ?

    Seriously, WTF would Juan Cole have had to say in such a documentary ?

    Q: Juan, why did you decide to disband the Iraqi army ?
    JC: I didn’t, I wasn’t involved in decisions about post-invasion Iraq.
    Q: Okay, so why did you fail to plan for continuity of critical infrastructure Juan ?
    JC: I wasn’t involved in any planning or execution of the Iraq invasion either, in fact I don’t know why I’m in this film which relates to these two things.
    Q: Me either. You can leave now Juan, don’t forget to validate your parking.

    Idiot.

    Comment by Sen — August 18, 2007 @ 6:17 am

  14. While well-made, I agree that the movie is basically a primer on how not to do an occupation. It’s fine to interview assholes, but the point shouldn’t be to make the assholes appear as thoughtful and responsible folk. That’s what this movie does, and insidiously lays the basis for future imperialist grabs.

    Comment by aaron — August 18, 2007 @ 7:05 am

  15. Thanks for the Review…. I now want to see it more…..
    I thought it was going to be another Fictional Movie from the left, with all the ignorant rhetoric like “Bush Lied, Soldiers Die”…

    It sounds like a True Documentary that does not FORCE their ideas down your throat, like a Michael More Movie, that is FACTUAL and OBJECTIVE…

    It’s showing in our town next month, I cannot wait to see it.

    Comment by John — August 24, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

  16. I can’t wait to see it either. But so far, I don’t see it scheduled here in my “red” neck part of the world. (Tennessee) I may have to wait for the DVD. In my opinion, any movie that exposes the arrogance, stupidity, and racism of this administration and it’s cronies is a welcome breath of fresh air. Having researched this war as diligently as a common citizen can these days, I have come to the conclusion that either 1.) This administration and it’s acolytes were all incredibly uninformed or just plain ignorant and stupid, or 2.) They knew exactly what they were doing and actually WANTED this war and the resulting chaos and destruction so they could continue their war pig aggressions until the end result is Armageddon in the middle east. It’s hard for me to see any other reasons for what they have done so far and seem to be planning to do (in regards to Iran) in the future. TJ

    Comment by Thomas Jackson — August 26, 2007 @ 12:46 pm

  17. I think it is important to note that whatever the director’s intentions for making this film, the average viewer’s feelings about the war and those people that got us into it may be very different when they walk out of that theater than when they went in. Not speculating on why we went to Iraq shields this movie from a lot of the criticism that, like it or not, would help to delegitimize it in the view of the people that need to be disgusted by the whole episode to the point of taking action. (Run-on much?) Those people are more likely to be an important part of who decides whether this kind of thing can happen again: Informed Voters. Those people are also more likely to see this movie than the one you seem to prefer had been written, as much of a crappy situation as that is.

    Comment by Justin — August 27, 2007 @ 3:26 am

  18. I really appreciate your website and your viewpoint. I just saw the film, and it turned my stomach to see up close how badly the war was waged. I agree the war was a crime to begin with – the Bush administration was a crime to begin with, even further back – but I have to say, this documentary made a compelling case for true criminal and reckless behavior on the part of the administration in the conduct of the war. I just hope it’s seen by the swing voters who can change the course of elections, though you’d probably argue that having the Dems in wouldn’t be a whole lot different. I don’t know, but it truly couldn’t get worse.

    And we have a global climate crisis on top of this, which threatens to overwhelm the world with more refugees than all the wars of the last century. I appreciate your website, but we really need to make some huge positive change soon on all fronts, and every bit helps.

    Comment by SM — August 28, 2007 @ 6:52 am

  19. I don’t know protocol on reviews like this, but don’t you think it would be a great idea to put some caveat in the body of the review that you were mistaken about who the director is? Not everyone reads all the comments and this wrong information may get repeated.

    Comment by gale wallis — September 3, 2007 @ 6:06 am

  20. I just saw No End In Sight. Perhaps my ability to analyze is at fault but I can’t help but feel responsible as an American for Iraq’s destruction. I knew we were going down the wrong path I just didn’t how wrong it was going to be. You probably don’t know what GESTAPO means but we supported the SHAH’s secret police SAVAK. Have we really become the Great SATAN? If not why are doing what we are doing now you have Iraqis who served and worked for us not being allowed entry into our country. I’m sorry I just don’t get it. But when the avian flu comes here and starts killing people like a wildfire it is because God finally lost his patience with us. Go see the movie.

    Comment by Veronica L. Skov — September 3, 2007 @ 10:53 pm

  21. I just saw No End In Sight. Perhaps my ability to analyze is at fault but I can’t help but feel responsible as an American for Iraq’s destruction. I knew we were going down the wrong path I just didn’t know how wrong it was going to be. You probably don’t know what GESTAPO means but we supported the SHAH’s secret police SAVAK. Have we really become the Great SATAN? If not, why are we doing what we are doing? Now you have Iraqis who served and worked for us not being allowed entry into our country. I’m sorry I just don’t get it. But when the avian flu comes here and starts killing people like a wildfire it is because God finally lost his patience with us. Go see the movie.

    Comment by Veronica L. Skov — September 3, 2007 @ 10:56 pm

  22. Regardless of the fact that the interviewees of this film were loyal American technocrats carrying out a criminal conspiracy to occupy a sovereign nation under false pretenses the film is still instructive as to how the occupation was so badly managed. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater won’t solve anything. Ad hominem attacks on the filmmaker are counterproductive. Want an extreme anti-war film? Go make it yourself.

    This film is a historical document of the first magnitude. Imagine the historical value of a similar film with Nazi occupation authorities involved in the illegal occupations of European countries… priceless. This is what we get with “No End in Sight.” Do these people share any moral culpability with the architects of the war? In their minds it seems that they do not and they were trying to make a success of the criminal policy of regime change, i.e. the war happened through no fault of our own but we are going to try to make the best of the aftermath. Why then didn’t they speak up more when it would have mattered most? Doing so after the fact is better than nothing but it would have been much more productive to have gone to the Congress and the American people and told us what was going on at the time or at least before the 2004 elections. Since they didn’t they are also, at least partially, responsible for the ensuing chaos. I’ve met Barbara Bodine, who is featured prominently in this film, and while I admire & respect her as a diplomat and an intellectual she has been curiously silent on this subject until now. After OHRA was disbanded and she left the State Dept. I eagerly looked for word from her on what had happened; in vain until now. While valuable to anyone who wants to educate themselves on what really happened it’s no more than historical insight at this point unless its used as evidence at a criminal tribunal or impeachment hearing.

    Comment by Frank - An American Patriot — September 4, 2007 @ 3:41 pm

  23. I saw the film last night and was surprised by some of the observations.

    Politics aside, it was a balanced review of the story todate.

    The fact that the administration botched EVERYTHING associated with going to war and waging war is a historical fact. This needs to be clear in the minds of all Americans. The film supports this conclusion with testimony and evidence from a balanced cross section of participants.

    Let’s give credit where it’s due. Let’s rise above the venomous spuing of ill informed right wing media and acknowledge a genuine effort to present historical facts in a considered manner.

    Of course going into Irag was wrong!!

    Comment by Paul Hamilton — September 7, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

  24. “No End In Sight” needs to be bookended on one side by “the Iraq War was wrong to begin with” and on the other side by “a rejection that such a neo-colonial adventure could be done ‘properly.’” However, between those necessary bookends, the documentary lays out the disastrous and appalling mismanagement and incompetency of the Bush Administration’s Iraq War and never ending occupation.

    However, it must be pointed out that this is a film that condemns the Bush Administration for failing to successfully carry out the strategic objectives of the NeoCons. As Richard Perle has said, “The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.” Thus, this film must be viewed and “enjoyed” with the same apolitical stance from which people from any political spectrum would enjoy a good joke about the rich idiot Bush jr. No more, no less.

    Comment by George Sell — October 24, 2007 @ 2:11 pm

  25. Your review sucks just as bad as your ideology. No end in sight doesn’t need to go into the criminality of the war because the point was to show the errors made through the scope of those who were there. That being said, it clearly indicated that war was wrong and to say it is criminal itself because it lacks knee-jerk liberal bumpersticker politics is as ridiculous as your utopic idea of man. get over it

    Comment by jo — November 11, 2007 @ 4:33 am

  26. The unholy Daddy Bush/bin Laden alliance and their lackeys, (Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Big Oil, weapons manufactureres, etc.) have accomplished exactly what they set out to do. Chaos in the Middle East = higher oil prices = more money for all of them. This film presents valuable evidence of that. Many “middle American” voters are, I think, more likely to believe it precisely because the interviewees are perceived as “neo-con” insiders. Unfortunately, many of those voters probably won’t see it-unless they happen to stumble upon your negative review.

    Comment by steve c — November 18, 2007 @ 11:00 am

  27. “One of them is Colonel Paul Hughes, who recounts how he wanted to beat down George W. Bush’s door to warn him about the consequences of dissolving the Iraqi army.”

    I just saw the movie. He was recounting how he wanted to beat down Bremer’s door, not Bush’s door. Entirely reasonable given the context. Try paying attention next time lest you continue to spout nonsense as you have in this review.

    Comment by Shatterer of Words — November 19, 2007 @ 8:29 am

  28. invading a country being so unprepared, and managing it so poorly, is not only irresponsible, its a big crime in itself.

    invading a country may be right, may be wrong. But once you decide to invade it there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. clearly, the bush administration chose the latter. Thats what this movie tries to communicate, and its done very well.

    Comment by Sm — December 7, 2007 @ 7:03 am

  29. So, they don’t mention that the war was wrong to start with, and they don’t go cheerleading for it either. Nor did they glorify intervention in the Balkans, it was referenced to give background to one of the interviewees. But you get irked by it. What did you expect? A documentary or a miraculously condensed politics course that crammed in all those views, PLUS got out some pertinent facts on how the game was rigged to prevent Iraqis from running their own country?
    Get some patience man, some of the best resistance to war has come from conscientious soldier who saw the failure and futility of their leaders policies.
    I disagree with the war, and I think that the film hinted heavily enough that people who tried to build a grass roots democracy in their own neighbourhoods, and those Americans who tried to help them, got shafted by the Bush Administration.
    The film criticises the occupation, which is ongoing. As a film, it works in what it set out to do, and I would recommend it to all my anti war friends.

    Comment by Jimbob — January 23, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

  30. I agree with Jimbob and KGC – you seem to have missed the point of the film altogether. You could criticize *any* documentary about *anything* because it didn’t contain the things you wanted it to contain. As a critique of what went wrong in Iraq directly after the invasion, it’s a brilliant film. You also criticize the 3 main points of the film but offer nothing in the way of counter-argument. So, is it NOT because of those 3 things that Iraq is in deep sh*t? If not, why? If you can’t answer that, your argument is empty.

    Comment by Papa — January 24, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

  31. In reply to Papa in #30, the U.S. had no right to go into Iraq to begin with. Unless this fundamental lesson is learned, there will be future Iraq’s as the saber-rattling directed against Iran reveals. My problem with the invasion of Iraq was not that it was poorly planned, but that it happened at all. “No End in Sight” strikes me as a film that never would have been made if the invasion of Iraq had gone as “well” as the invasion of Grenada or Panama under Reagan and Bush the elder. We need a foreign policy that excludes the notion that the U.S. is the world’s policeman.

    Comment by louisproyect — January 24, 2008 @ 2:39 pm

  32. While I respect your view of this film, I think that more and more people need to know about the dishonesty of the government and how willing it is to lie about important things that are going on. If they’re willing to lie about what’s going on after the war began, then one would think that they would lie to start the war. The movie did mention in the beginning about the government immediately attempting to make a connection between Afghanistan and Iraq, and did include the damning comment “i don’t know what they were smoking”
    however, if this documentary would have gone into too much discussion about the legally of the war, then, there would have simply been too much material for the movie.
    also col. hughes was making a reference to wanting to kick down bremen’s door, not bush’s.

    I feel your review doesn’t really review the actual movie itself, but the subject of the movie altogether. You were looking for want you wanted in the movie based on the subject matter of the war itself and not the subject of the movie. You even state yourself in the last post that your problem was not the invasion of Iraq being poorly planned, but that it happened.
    Well this movie was about the invasion being poorly planned. One BIG topic, one movie. That’s how they work. And you can’t “what if” a movie (a documentary especially) being made if things didn’t happen the way they did. Documentaries are nonfiction, they’re about things that happen.
    What iffing history of possible future’s a very poor point-making technique. That guy on Fox does it a lot, what’s his name O’Reilly… it’s really annoying.

    although I do actually agree that this movie is like a what not to do when reconstructing a conquered country. Political aspirations aside… (from the creator and reviewer), I think that this is an important movie, simply to let Americans (particularly young ones like myself) what happened in Iraq and why the world hates us. And I think it could be a step in spreading racism and hatred for middle eastern countries which has ran rampant in the U.S.

    Comment by Chris — June 2, 2008 @ 10:51 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,973 other followers

%d bloggers like this: