Another 300 review

This time from David Forsmark:

The new ultra-macho war movie, 300, continues to rack up box office victories, leaving the battered and bloodied bodies of liberal critics in its wake. The movie about the brave 300 Spartans led by King Leonidas who fought the Persian Empire of King Xerxes to a standstill for three days at Thermopylae Pass has fully animated audiences nationwide.
But what has been interesting about much of the battle over 300 is not the negative reviews-- that’s been going on since Dirty Harry inspired revulsion among the cognoscenti who used the word “fascist” with more unanimity against it than at any time since Mussolini hit the end of the rope. No, what is unusual is the psy-ops aimed at blunting the movie’s message, which is uniformly one about freedom v. slavery, rationality v. evil mysticism, and independence v. subordination.

Many of you no doubt saw the Drudge headline the weekend before the film’s opening: “BATTLE OF BUSH?: NEW MOVIE RAISES EYEBROWS WITH 'POLITICAL OVERTONE'” This was prompted by a question by an “unnamed reporter” at a press screening who asked director Zack Snyder, “Is George Bush Leonidas or Xerxes?”

The question was so stupid that “unnamed” must have been auditioning for Newsweek —you know, the publication that reported that Korans were being flushed down toilets in a place where they don’t have flush toilets (no one asked the question, “How do you flush a thousand page book down a toilet?”) and called the courageous Muslim dissident Ayaan Hirsi Ali a “bombthrower” even though she speaks out against people who, uh—THROW BOMBS!

The disgrace of today’s topsy-turvy media world is that a reporter can ask whether the heroic Spartan king -- who preaches freedom, resists tyranny while his political foes attempt to undermine him at home, and who sacrifices everything to stand against the forces of barbarism – is more representative of George W. Bush, or Osama bin Laden without being laughed out of the room.

The star of the film, Scotsman Gerard Baker, spilled the beans in his Esquire interview before backtracking wildly to cover himself. ( ): “300 was sold to me one way: the Spartans are the US.”

The film is explicit in its treatment of the conflict, which is between the West (Greece) and all it represented in 480 B.C. and East and all it represented. Even to hint that Leonidas may be a stand in for the Iraqi terrorists is absurd. First, the Spartans did not conduct sneak attacks on Persian civilians; they faced their odds head on. They weren't terrorists, they were soldiers who were willing to fight whether anyone else in the world joined them, or not. They were led by a king who scorned nuance, refused diplomacy with barbarians, and would rather fight than bow—and who struck the enemy even while his domestic rivals tried to twist the law to make him stop.

Hmmm. Who does THAT sound like?

Who does that sound like?

George W Bush's popularity numbers are in the 30's because of the Iraq war. He could just about double them overnight, just by announcing a withdrawal timetable. Also, he could probably get some major concessions from Democrats, like making his tax cuts permanent, in exchange.

Yet he doesn't.

Why?

When Bush's numbers were in the high 70's and the public overwhelmingly backed war to remove Saddam Mrs. Bill Clinton and John Edwards and almost all the other Democrat in elected office voted to authorize the war and stood 100% with the President.

Now that the political winds have changed their support has not just melted away, but turned into bitter opposition. Even some Republicans are turning against the war and the president.

So why does Bush stand firm when he has nothing to gain (in a political sense) and every thing to lose by doing so?

I realize that courage and integrity in politicians are so rare that when confronted with an example of them it can be confusing. The first impulse is to try and find some other explanation, but in the end, as Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, once you have eliminated all the other possibilities the one which is left, however improbable, must be the truth.