If you accept the mainstream media’s spin on the NSA wiretap story, you might think that President Bush authorized these surveillances for the selfish purpose of amassing presidential power and eventually monitoring political opponents. Of course, the media refuses to entertain the President’s argument that warrantless wiretaps were necessary to prevent imminent terrorist attacks and save American lives. But Bush isn’t the only one making this claim. Recently, General Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency and current deputy director of national intelligence, briefed journalists on this issue. He makes it clear that the wiretaps authorized by Bush have stopped terrorist attacks within America, and that such a feat would not have been possible if the President had sought a warrant through the cumbersome, FISA judical process. The full article is in the Weekly Standard.

Reporter: Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

Gen. Hayden: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

Reporter: General Hayden, I know you’re not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it’s been successful. But would it have been as successful-can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

Gen. Hayden: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

I have yet to hear General Hayden’s remarks on any network news station. I’m not surprised. The media conveniently overlook any stories that do not reinforce their irrational, insatiable and preconceived notion that “Bush is bad.”

After spending some time at the movies this past week, it has become utterly clear to me that Hollywood has no understanding as to the true nature of terrorism and the deadly war of which America is currently engaged. Of course, Hollywood has always been a hotbed for superficial and radical leftist ideas. But it still amazes me that filmmakers can be so hopelessly naive and misinformed about the best way to defeat international terrorism. Thank God these people don’t make policy! After seeing Munich and Syriana, the message was clear: America and the West are just as bad as the Middle Eastern tyrants and terrorists - the usual moral equivalence mantra - and our actions to defeat terrorism only inspire and beget an endless cycle of violence. In short, Speilberg and Clooney, even after the horrific attacks of September 11th, still do not believe in a real war on terror. On the contrary, they view terrorism as a problem that should be addressed through law enforcement measures. Speilberg makes this point unmistakably clear. At the end of the film, the main character, Avner, who is the leader of the Israeli assassination team, delivers a monologue where he condemns the mission of the Mossad and expresses his belief that bringing the Black September killers to trial would have been a better solution. Victor David Hanson recognizes this very shortcoming in Munich (read his entire piece here):
“Moral equivalence is perhaps the most troubling of Hollywood’s postmodern pathologies — or the notion that each side that resorts to violence is of the same ethical nature. Steven Spielberg best summed up the theme of his recently released film about the 1972 murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and the subsequent Israeli hunt of the perpetrators: ‘A response to a response doesn’t really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine.’”

Still, I would recommend that everyone see Munich. It is an engaging thriller with some redeeming value.It is also possible to take away an “alternative” message, different from the one Speilberg intended. Indeed, I left the film strengthened in my belief that terrorism can only be defeated through offensive, preemptive action. Munich’s plot demonstrates, perhaps inadvertently, that a restrained response to terrorism, such as limited assassinations, cannot prevent terrorist attacks; only an aggressive and full-blown military strategy can adequately protect the homeland.
Also, do not waste your time watching The Family Stone. It is hardly a family film. It features a homosexual couple that is strongly embraced and encouraged by all of the film’s lead characters. In one especially revealing scene, Sarah Jessica Parker’s character, who is supposed to be the conservative-minded, “fish-out-of-water” fiancee, expresses some mild concern over the couple’s ability to raise children. Predictably, Parker is severely castigated by the Stone family for being insensitive and intolerant. It also becomes apparent that Diane Keaton’s character has actually encouraged her son to be gay! The film’s ultimate message is that family’s can take many different forms, and love should be the sole factor in familial bonds. This is the same homosexual propaganda that Hollywood has been subtly pushing for the past ten years. It is just a shame that a movie that blatantly markets itself as a family film must be infested with such new age, “progressive” moral filth.

Victor David Hanson is right – Hollywood’s movies are increasingly out-of-touch with mainstream America. It is no surprise that ticket sales are at historically low levels. Most Americans realize that terrorism is evil, and America is inherently good. They know that families should be composed of one man, and one woman. For the sake of their pocketbooks, Hollywood needs to finally burst its leftist bubble and recognize this important reality.