Audience Reaction
One of the things that writers need is feedback. It is invaluable to know that someone has read and liked (or disliked -- aghast) what you have put out there, but even more so when those people give you some kind of usable responses. Not only is it part of the learning process, but, moreso, it's kinda cool. Blogging or writing scripts or books (I know, I know -- I slack) are ostensibly to post opinions, witticisms, and stories for reader consumption. But without getting something back, I might as well put them in a diary and lock them away. And then you'd be sorry.

Yesterday's little post about Obama (truthfully, I'd never even heard the name until Jaquandor's post), elicited a couple of interesting comments from my friends. And I know where they both live. Needless to say, they both got me thinking. They both made party-line criticisms (which is not to discount them) about my rather silly political post. I really had no intention of making a political statement, but rather an observation that related to a film (which, of course, is the only way I interact successfully with society).

Firstly, the "roommate" (whose identity is as well kept a secret as our president's middle initial) said:

I get your point and I think it's legitimate... provided the president doesn't rely on weak/exaggerated intelligence to justify dragging the country into a war he "believes is right". To put it plainly - does the end justify the means?

Firstly, the term 'dragging' should be applied to those who share that point-of-view, and not necessarily this country in which millions others of us don't believe we were 'dragged'. The intelligence, which was shared with all the member of congress and the allies, was enough for our legislature to vote yes to invading Iraq way back in 2002. Even so, mere intelligence isn't enough to prompt a full-scale invasion of another country. There has to be higher objectives and/or perceived threats to commit a nation to this level of interaction. (If you want to read a good summary overall, go here.) I think the disagreement you present is based on your perception of our administration's agenda.

I am guessing that you (and many others) perceive the Bush administration as doing this for either a war-mongering or daddy-revenge reason, and I (and others, again) perceive it in strategic terms. I take this as a difference in belief and perception, such as how one could see Hillary Clinton as a 'spurious bitch' and others see her as a great woman ;). As with all things, our views are greatly influenced by our preconceived notions or biases. I don't like Hillary. You don't like Bush. Fair enough on both counts. These biases will hinder our abilities to appreciate a more logical view, just as those who can't see all the intricacies and beauty in Attack of the Clones because they don't want to or they don't get it (must have at least one movie reference!). Of course, I may be judged insane by those who can't stand the prequels, but therein is another example of the prejudicial difference. Blathering aside, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But more to the point: You can't encapsulate a complex issue with a tidy sound-bite, such as 'ends justify the means', without missing a helluva lot in the expurgation.

As for Jaquandor's quote, well, you just suck. Kidding. He said:

Not wishing to get into a whole debate on the war in Iraq, I think you're completely missing Obama's point. The film is talking about fighting the political fights, whereas Obama was referring to a very common criticism of the Iraq effort (and one with which I agree): that the military commitment was not sufficient to the task at hand.

Kelly here does indeed hit on a key point. I was making a very loose comparison from a quote that was out of context, and I knew it. It just reminded me of the movie-line, and I thought it interesting to compare two liberal speeches that had different points about similar things. As to the amount of men or commitment, I'm not too familiar with that critique. Do we need more troops? More artillery? Last I checked, we had been fighting terrorist insurgents, not armies, for the last year, and I don't think that an extra 10,000 men would matter in that scenario. If what you are talking about is a longer commitment to stay and ensure the democracy of Iraq, then I agree. To stop now or fall short would be disasterous. No war is ever perfect, and changes are always made in process. The effort can be criticized with 20/20 hindsight wisdom (fairly or unfairly), and the history books yet to be written will have their final say. This criticism doesn't seem like much of a political one as a military one, so I don't see how it's relevant (unless, of course, Obama is a logistics and tactical expert).

In any event, food for my brain, and hopefully for yours.