What a Guy!
You just have to love Sean Penn. Why? I have no idea, but such an astute and thoughtful man deserves admiration for something. In a recent interview with the AP, Penn gave some of his thoughts on President Bush and our current governmental leadership:
Wow, unfitness to lead anything, huh? Of course, Penn is infinitely qualified to make such an assessment. After all, he won an Academy Award and looks to Michael Moore as his fact-finder (Golly-gee, Wally...all that footage! I know George Bush personally and that's who he is). Not to say he has no right to such opinions. He clearly does, regardless of how foolish they are. However, the kicker for me in regards to his ineptitude is his comparison of an incident in 1974 with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
In a new movie called The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Penn stars as Samuel Byck, a man who "blamed his shortcomings on societal corruption and attempted to kill President Nixon by hijacking a plane to crash it into the White House."
Penn explained that "the dismay Byck felt over revelations of government deceit as Watergate unfolded is relevant today amid allegations that President Bush misled Americans by fanning fears of future terrorism to gain support for the Iraq war."
Exactly how is it relevant, Mr. Penn? Besides the fact that one man's attempt to crash a plane into the White House has nothing to do with terrorists crashing jetliners into three buildings, killing thousands of innocent people, Penn seems to be justifying the actions of Byck and, presumedly, anyone else who might take such extreme actions in response to their dismay over the scandalous actions of President Bush. Clearly, with Penn's anti-Bush views, he could hardly blame someone's "short-comings" like attempting to kill the President of the United States when there is so much corruption...I mean, Bush just begs to be taken out by some poor, innocent citizen who only wants to do what is right, but can't help himself in light of such an evil regime.
OK, maybe I'm off-base here with Mr. Penn...after all, I did say you have to admire him for something, didn't I? I thought he was great in Dead Man Walking. But in addition to all this it seems absurd that, despite the feelings one may have about this particular president, anyone could be accused of "fanning fears of future terrorism to gain support for the Iraq war"? When buildings came crashing down, killing over 3,000 people, exactly how much more could fears of future terrorism be "fanned"? How much more did we need to be convinced in order to realize that there were bad people who wanted to do us great harm, not the least of which was Saddam Hussein? At what point does assessing a dangerous situation and calling a spade a spade become prudent? Apparently, for some, never. For pacifists like Sean Penn, it's more important to fan the fears that we're being led by an incompetent man who is "unfit to lead anything" than to entertain the idea that peace at all costs is not really peace at all.
AP: Has corruption in government grown worse since Nixon?
Penn: No question about it. The arrogance with which it's played out. I think you'd have a very difficult time Watergating George Bush. The spin and the manipulation of media, the distraction of planned emergencies, is on a whole new level. And there's a kind of general lack of diversity of principle within the Congress. So I think when you can get something like the Patriot Act passed, it would be kind of like child's play to pull off a Watergate ...
AP: What did you think of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
Penn: All of that footage — how long was it, seven plus minutes (when Bush sat in the classroom)? ... That's who George Bush is. I think it speaks very specifically to something that not everybody has. Forget politics, forget Republican, right, left. But it speaks to his unfitness to lead anything.
Wow, unfitness to lead anything, huh? Of course, Penn is infinitely qualified to make such an assessment. After all, he won an Academy Award and looks to Michael Moore as his fact-finder (Golly-gee, Wally...all that footage! I know George Bush personally and that's who he is). Not to say he has no right to such opinions. He clearly does, regardless of how foolish they are. However, the kicker for me in regards to his ineptitude is his comparison of an incident in 1974 with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
In a new movie called The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Penn stars as Samuel Byck, a man who "blamed his shortcomings on societal corruption and attempted to kill President Nixon by hijacking a plane to crash it into the White House."
Penn explained that "the dismay Byck felt over revelations of government deceit as Watergate unfolded is relevant today amid allegations that President Bush misled Americans by fanning fears of future terrorism to gain support for the Iraq war."
Exactly how is it relevant, Mr. Penn? Besides the fact that one man's attempt to crash a plane into the White House has nothing to do with terrorists crashing jetliners into three buildings, killing thousands of innocent people, Penn seems to be justifying the actions of Byck and, presumedly, anyone else who might take such extreme actions in response to their dismay over the scandalous actions of President Bush. Clearly, with Penn's anti-Bush views, he could hardly blame someone's "short-comings" like attempting to kill the President of the United States when there is so much corruption...I mean, Bush just begs to be taken out by some poor, innocent citizen who only wants to do what is right, but can't help himself in light of such an evil regime.
OK, maybe I'm off-base here with Mr. Penn...after all, I did say you have to admire him for something, didn't I? I thought he was great in Dead Man Walking. But in addition to all this it seems absurd that, despite the feelings one may have about this particular president, anyone could be accused of "fanning fears of future terrorism to gain support for the Iraq war"? When buildings came crashing down, killing over 3,000 people, exactly how much more could fears of future terrorism be "fanned"? How much more did we need to be convinced in order to realize that there were bad people who wanted to do us great harm, not the least of which was Saddam Hussein? At what point does assessing a dangerous situation and calling a spade a spade become prudent? Apparently, for some, never. For pacifists like Sean Penn, it's more important to fan the fears that we're being led by an incompetent man who is "unfit to lead anything" than to entertain the idea that peace at all costs is not really peace at all.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 1/03/2005 01:05:00 AM
|
1 Comments:
First time visitor. Loved this post. You nailed Penn almost as good as the South Park guys in "Team America".
You know I have a lot of respect for Penn's acting ability too. But what makes actors think their political opinions are any more worthy of consideration that oh, say my mailman's. Which is not to say that all opinions don't have value in the marketplace of ideas, its just that "celebrities" seem to believe we should actually believe their thoughts are automatically worthy of respect. It's not happening, as 58 million Americans made clear last November....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home