Take a look at “The Grapevine” over at Fox News today, and you just may find a few very disturbing tidbits – like these...

Ever since the movie came out, people have been talking about whether “War of the Worlds” is some sort of commentary on the Iraq War. I didn’t see the connection, myself. Sometimes a movie’s just a movie, you know? However, the screenwriter has said that that, indeed, we're looking at cutting edge criticism here....if he can figure what he's criticizing– here’s the scoop:

Screenwriter David Koepp, quoted by the Canadian magazine Rue Morgue, said, "…the Martians [in the movie] ... represent American military forces invading the Iraqis, and the futility of the occupation of a faraway land is again the subtext." And, in an interview with USA Weekend, Koepp said, "You can read our movie several ways. It could be 9/11 paranoia. Or it could be about how U.S. military interventionism abroad is doomed by insurgency, just the way an alien invasion might be."

OK, so how many times are we going to have to go through this –

ATTENTION LIBERAL LOONIES: we are NOT LOSING IN IRAQ!!!!!!

Hubby found me this graphic a while ago, and I didn’t want to post it because of its non-family-friendly language, but now it's just gotta be done. Here's a slightly edited version:

Heh. I can't help it - I love this. Got a large-sized version on my wall. For the non-smudgy version, email me.

Oh, and by the by, the alien invasion WASN'T doomed by insurgency; actually the aliens kicked butt (so maybe there is one similarity). The aliens were defeated by microscopic organisms - basically, they got head colds, and it killed them. Doesn't this guy watch his own movies?

Next!

OK, it's a bad week for stories out of Canada. The little gem above was in a Canadian magazine, and now this, also out of the Grapevine:

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is prescribing guidelines for when the words "terrorism" or "terror" can be used: It seems to be never.

The CBC specifically referred to 9/11, the London bombings, the bombing in Bali, and the train station bombings in Madrid, saying that they should not be referred to as "terrorist acts," unless the term is used when quoting someone else. And this was a STAFF MEMO.

They say that terrorism, as a term, is "highly controversial" and use of it is "taking sides."

They offer this helpful advice "... Instead of reaching for a label ... try describing what happened."

Do they understand what "describing what happened" would mean? You'd never pass the censors! It's a BOMBING....hello...then again, maybe it would do some good for the hug-a-terrorist lefties to actually know what bombs do to innocent people...the horror that these worms are willing to inflict on whomever, just to kill. No, it probably wouldn't - they'd just start justifying it.

OK, how about this. Simple words, G-rated, describing what happened:
In all of the attacks referenced above, some TERRORISTS murdered innocent people because that's what terrorists do. In Madrid, they murdered innocent people in order to control an election (worked). In New York, they murdered innocent people in order to frighten the U.S. into leaving them alone (didn't work), and just because we represent everything they hate - horrible things like freedom, equal rights, capitalism.....

Nah, too "controversial."

Egads, might I be taking sides???

You bet.


Linked with Mudville Gazette's Open Post