Christopher Ruddy
Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2003

'The Reagans' vs. Mel Gibson’s Movie

Some defenders of “The Reagans” say it is unfair to criticize it since no one criticizing the film has seen it.

These same defenders note that the same argument has been made about Mel Gibson’s upcoming movie, “The Passion.”

First of all, it is perfectly fair to criticize anything in America. It’s a free country and I don’t have to have seen a movie to offer my criticisms.

In both cases there is ample room for discussion before the films are released publicly. For example, in both cases the scripts of the movie were published.

In the case of Mel Gibson’s movie, his detractors say they have reviewed the script. Their main argument is that the movie too closely mirrors the story of Jesus’ death outlined in the four Gospels.

Their argument is that the Bible was unfair to the Jews of that time. They are angry that Gibson stuck to the historical record.

In the case of CBS’s “The Reagans,” the producers have claimed the movie is historically accurate. Meanwhile, the script shows that the factual basis of the movie is more akin to a skit on “Saturday Night Live.”

The producers now reveal that they made up quotes never uttered by Ronald or Nancy Reagan. They claim historians were consulted, but none will vouch for the veracity of the movie.

Though I have not seen “The Reagans,” I am quite happy to criticize it.

More on the Iraq Quagmire

Now that the Iraq war is beginning to resemble a Vietnam-style quagmire, wouldn’t it have been better if we had avoided nation building in this far-off country?

When one company acquires a new company, they rarely fire everyone and try to rebuild from scratch. Instead, they simply replace senior management.

That’s what Iraq needed: a change of senior management.

I don’t believe George Bush was wrong in identifying Iraq as a grave threat.

In the post-9/11 era, we can’t wait to find out about rogue states after smallpox is released or a nuclear device is detonated in an American city.

Thus, the objective – to remove Saddam – was right and good.

But so far, the implementation has been faulty. We made a mistake soon after victory in firing the Iraqi army and declaring that Baathists could not hold any official positions.

We inadvertently encouraged the very people we needed to work with us to work against us.

Killing Saddam With Rewards

It appears to me that the No. 1 objective for the U.S. is to get and kill Saddam Hussein.

We successfully offered reward money for his sons and bagged both of them.

A $25 million reward remains on Saddam’s head.

Meanwhile, Saddam and his allies offer monetary rewards for the killing of Americans.

Considering the risks for ratting-out Saddam, and considering how much his continued existence costs the U.S. taxpayer (billions, no doubt), we should up the reward on his head.

Let’s start with $100 million and add $50 million a month to that figure until he’s caught.

The idea of these bounties has long been advocated by NewsMax pundit Wilson C. Lucom. As Lucom says, the reward program is brilliant: If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t cost the U.S. a cent!

Fox News Conservative?

It is almost like a steady drumbeat of criticism that Fox News is conservative.

It isn’t, but Fox’s two prime-time stars, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, are both viewed by the media elites as conservative. So the label has been affixed.

But the Fox Network is more than fair. The liberal media are so far left that anyone who isn’t as far left has to be “right wing.”

The liberals may be angry with Fox, but the good thing is that it has improved the other networks.

Both CNN and MSNBC are better because of Fox.

CNN also has a great asset in Lou Dobbs.

He is their crown jewel, a true journalist. When you watch his program, you realize he doesn’t have an agenda but asks fair and tough questions. That’s the way journalists used to be.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
CBS's "The Reagans"
Media Bias
Saddam Hussein/Iraq

Editor's note:
Hear John Wayne, "Why I love America" - Click Here