And speaking of fighters for democracy (UPDATE)

Steve Gilliard answers a David Brooks column in which Brooks wonders:

Every time you delve into the situation in Iraq, you come away with the phrase "not enough troops" ringing in your head, and I hope someday we will find out how this travesty came about.

Second, why aren't there more stories about war heroes like Christopher Ieva? The casual courage he and his men displayed is awe-inspiring, but most Americans couldn't name a single hero from this war. That's because despite all the amazing things people are achieving in Iraq, we don't tell their stories back here. That's partly because in the post-Vietnam era many Americans - especially those who dominate the culture - are uncomfortable with military valor.

Steve?

How did this happen? Well, Bobo, it's because Rummy thought machines could take the place of Marine riflemen.

Brooks is lying about military valor. Straight up lying.

Why?

Because the right hates military heroes. They hated Max Clelland, they hated John Kerry, they hate Jack Murtha and they even hate Cindy Sheehan.

2100 dead, 15,000 wounded. Plenty of heroes in those groups, but if we talked about them, wel'd have to ask why so many were hurt and killed while Iraq spirals out of control.

But don't worry, the star of North and Color Of Night is on the case.

Angered by negative portrayals of the conflict in Iraq, Bruce Willis, the Hollywood star, is to make a pro-war film in which American soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy.

As opposed to those America-hating films like Saving Private Ryan.

As you can well imagine, in the conservative " blogosphere" this news is being greeted with hosannas. ShrinkWrapped, for example, writes (after a whole bunch of the usual bullshit about how Hollywood is anti-Christian, anti-American, pro-Muslin and too polemical):

This brings up an interesting thought experiment: When this movie (if it is at all well done, and with Willis involved, it will be) brings in $100,000,000 what will Hollywood do for an encore?

Here's a more interesting "thought experiement," at least to me. Why would anybody think "with Willis involved, it will be [well done]?" Really? If this movie is well done (assuming it actually gets made), It'll be because somebody had the fiscal sense to get a good director and a better script.

Is Willis that somebody? Let's focus. The more Willis is involved with his movies as anything other than an actor, the more they tend to suck. And the less they tend to bring in. I direct you to his list of production and/or "writing" credits, which include the Crocodile Hunter movie, Hudson Hawk, and Hostage.

But hey, if it bombs, it'll be because Hollywood blacklisted a "pro-America" movie, right? Not because Willis doesn't know the difference between having clout and having the ability to use that clout.