Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why do you have such a boner for Chris Kyle? The article doesn't even mention him -- just the movie, and the two things are not the same (if you had seen the movie you would known it is plainly fictionalized.)

A few days ago you said Chris Kyle was a "liar" -- noting that he had lost a defamation suit. The defamation suit was brought by Jesse Ventura, who alleged that Kyle's story about an encounter with Ventura was false. It went to trial after Chris Kyle was dead. Do you think there is any chance that a jury, that had to decide who was telling the truth about a conversation -- the oh-so-popular plaintiff Jesse Ventura, or the dead defendant -- might have gotten that wrong?

I saw American Sniper today (and was going to post about it, then saw your post). I cannot understand why anyone, right or left, is making such a fuss. The movie does not depict Kyle simply as a hero; it depicts him as an ass to his family, unable to leave the war, and a few other negative things -- and also as a guy who was very, very good at his particular job, and who (as a sniper) felt responsible for watching over American soldiers.

If the movie depiction of him was accurate (either as a reflection of the man or a reflection of the book, or both), then the guy clearly had difficulty with some of the things he did. His first kill (in the movie) was of a young boy who was carrying a bomb towards US soldiers. He didn't celebrate it, he wasn't happy, but he shot the kid to prevent the killing of US soldiers. Could you have done that? Could you say that he should not have? He also did not hate Iraqis; he referred to al Qaeda et al as "savages" but he also put his life at risk to try and save Iraqis from them.

I also cannot understand the fuss on the right. The movie itself is critical of the war, and of Kyle's attitude and what happened to him.

btw, the movie isn't great -- the script is a little silly. Though Cooper is pretty damn good.

If you are going to tell me that your problem with Kyle is that he hates Iraqis or takes joy in killing or anything else, then let me know if you are basing that on what his book actually said or just on what people have said about his book (often, as I've seen, after admitting that they hadn't read it but were just basing it on what they were told).

Why are you so keen on defending him?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Does he make those claims in his book?

For example -- a quick Google search pulls an article saying that his family -- not him, but his family after he died -- made the claim that all proceeds from the book went to charity. (But you're a capable lawyer, I'm sure you could find a way to pin that lie on him.)


The story about the Katrina killings also smells a bit fishy. Snopes reports on it -- they are debunking Kyle's claim, but to me they end up casting doubt on whether he ever made that claim:



So, what really seems to have happened is that three people said that they were talking with Kyle; one remembers that Kyle claimed to have shot thirty men; another remembers that Kyle claimed that he and another sniper shot thirty men; and a third doesn't remember anything at all. This suggests that he didn't make a public claim about it, but at most was in a shit-talking session with some SEALS who were talking tough and who all remember different things.


The carjacking story appears to be one he actually told, and probably false. So, yes, he was a screwed-up guy (which the movie captures fairly well), and he was a pro-gun guy and those people tend to hump each other over their self-defense stories. Dumb thing to do? Sure.


So, yeah -- a guy who spends many days lying on rooftops waiting to kill people, which includes having to figure out which man (or woman, or child) in street-clothes is a threat that should be killed and which isn't, is a little fucked-up by the experience. But you and Ty are awfully quick to condemn him, to suggest that there was nothing positive about him, and to act as if he was evil rather than acknowledge that maybe what he was put through was part of that. And, of course, to suggest that a movie you haven't seen is designed to create a cult around him -- it's creating that cult, but that's because of people who think in a mirror-image to your black-and-white view.


I guess acknowledging that I have difficulty judging a person who went through something I cannot imagine means I'm just a "clever lawyer." At least, in your eyes. What's life like up on that mountain-top, oh great one?

Ah, the mountain top. A fine trope. Sorry to insult you by calling you a clever lawyer. I take it back.

I'm going to confess, my views of his behavior have a lot to do with thinking about the people who deal with the fall out from crap like this. I really think, more than anything else, he smacks of a wartime mental health case, as I've noted before, not a friend of the devil who was born to kill. I think you're mushing up what I've said and what Ty has said about various elements of him, and we have two very different (if both negative) views. I think Ty is also much more invested in hating the guy, while I just find this a more interesting subject than Brady's Balls and a less interesting one than Netanyahu's campaign for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Maybe some of his lies, even the ones told point blank and carefully in interviews, were the product of drunken exaggerations, an overactive imagination, difficulty processing -- there are such a range of them, and they go from the mindbogglingly outrageous to the merely stupid, they probably fit along a wide spectrum from little fib to intentional aggrandizement to substance-induced hallucination (though I've seen a couple interviews where he denies drinking much). Old war stories from retired soldiers are not a new thing.

But all of that goes toward his credibility. You say the movie is clearly fictionalized - I say it's likely much of the book is fictionalized, too, even parts he claimed are true. A lot of his interviews are fictionalized. It's really pretty pitiful in a lot of ways, but I am just not sure how you do much of anything with his stories, how you separate fact from fiction. Sure, some of it's not made up. But how do you tell what?

But besides all these rather sad and disturbing mental health issues, there is a very real military problem created by the guy - a special ops guy bragging about his kills in public and publishing a book of the braggadocio is a real bad thing from the perspective of the military and other soldiers. That puts other soliders at risk, that sets up all kinds of opportunity for ISIS or aQ propaganda. That's bad.

Luckily, there's some snow coming though, and this mountain is going to be great for skiing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why are you so keen on defending him?

I don't think that the stupidity on the right, about Kyle or the movie, justifies the reaction on the left. He is not a stand-in for the Iraq war, and I really have difficult when people cast judgments about a person -- judgments that largely appear based on what people say that person has said or done, filtered through various levels -- without recognizing what he went through and was put through by and for his country.

I was proud that the anti-war advocates in this country, this time around, did not take that view out on the soldiers who fought for the US but focused on the policy-makers, and even when soldiers committed heinous acts we looked at the individuals, and at the leadership, without taking the "baby-killer!" tone that happened in, say, the Vietnam era.

Overall, I think the guy deserves a little more respect. Not worship, not blind adulation (i.e., not the response on the right), but respect. And perhaps some sympathy, for what happens when we intentionally turn people into killing machines.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ah, the mountain top. A fine trope. Sorry to insult you by calling you a clever lawyer. I take it back.

I'm going to confess, my views of his behavior have a lot to do with thinking about the people who deal with the fall out from crap like this. I really think, more than anything else, he smacks of a wartime mental health case, as I've noted before, not a friend of the devil who was born to kill. I think you're mushing up what I've said and what Ty has said about various elements of him, and we have two very different (if both negative) views. I think Ty is also much more invested in hating the guy, while I just find this a more interesting subject than Brady's Balls and a less interesting one than Netanyahu's campaign for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Maybe some of his lies, even the ones told point blank and carefully in interviews, were the product of drunken exaggerations, an overactive imagination, difficulty processing -- there are such a range of them, and they go from the mindbogglingly outrageous to the merely stupid, they probably fit along a wide spectrum from little fib to intentional aggrandizement to substance-induced hallucination (though I've seen a couple interviews where he denies drinking much). Old war stories from retired soldiers are not a new thing.

But all of that goes toward his credibility. You say the movie is clearly fictionalized - I say it's likely much of the book is fictionalized, too, even parts he claimed are true. A lot of his interviews are fictionalized. It's really pretty pitiful in a lot of ways, but I am just not sure how you do much of anything with his stories, how you separate fact from fiction. Sure, some of it's not made up. But how do you tell what?

But besides all these rather sad and disturbing mental health issues, there is a very real military problem created by the guy - a special ops guy bragging about his kills in public and publishing a book of the braggadocio is a real bad thing from the perspective of the military and other soldiers. That puts other soliders at risk, that sets up all kinds of opportunity for ISIS or aQ propaganda. That's bad.

Luckily, there's some snow coming though, and this mountain is going to be great for skiing.

Thank you -- I appreciate the rational response. I expect that some of the book is fictionalized (haven't read it). And the mental health issues are really at the core of this -- which, honestly, the movie brings out pretty well, but are getting drowned in the noise. After all, the guy was murdered by another vet who he was trying to help.

I'm not recommending the movie -- I went because my 14-yo wanted to see it. I just don't understand the craziness about it, and I think condemning someone as a pathological liar (which you seem to have done), or a war criminal (as Ty seems to have done) based on drunken stories and machoness, or even based on overstatements about what he did in the war, is just too much.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

He is not a stand-in for the Iraq war, and I really have difficult when people cast judgments about a person -- judgments that largely appear based on what people say that person has said or done, filtered through various levels -- without recognizing what he went through and was put through by and for his country.

If this is a discussion about what's is acceptable/understandable result of the horrors of war, I get what you're saying. If you're asserting that there is no line, which at times it feels like you are, then I don't get it at all.

I was proud that the anti-war advocates in this country, this time around, did not take that view out on the soldiers who fought for the US but focused on the policy-makers, and even when soldiers committed heinous acts we looked at the individuals, and at the leadership, without taking the "baby-killer!" tone that happened in, say, the Vietnam era.

Are you old enough to actually remember this tone yourself? I'm not, but I have a strong suspicion that it's largely apocryphal.

To the extent that it was not - and I'm sure some of that crap actually happened - I'm happy that it hasn't really been an issue this time around.

That said, I don't think the concerns about this film and this guy are really driven by antiwar sentiment.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

If this is a discussion about what's is acceptable/understandable result of the horrors of war, I get what you're saying. If you're asserting that there is no line, which at times it feels like you are, then I don't get it at all.

Definitely not asserting that there is no line. Some people (Calley being the classic example, and a number of US soldiers in Iraq) are way over that line. Others are closer to it.

A war like Iraq makes the line very hard to find, and I believe that makes the situation much more traumatic for soldiers.

Are you old enough to actually remember this tone yourself? I'm not, but I have a strong suspicion that it's largely apocryphal.

I remember seeing a little on the news (I was in grade school when soldiers were coming home), but hearing much more about it directly from people who were participating on both sides -- people my oldest brother knew, people I met over the years whose kids were in the war, and both vets and people very active in the anti-war movement who I knew in college (I took a few classes, including a class on the Vietnam war, that had a lot of older students -- including one woman who was married to a former Weatherman, which was interesting.... especially when vets visited that class). I think the tone was different, and more hostile to soldiers, and certainly the "hero" fetish wasn't there (not saying that's a good thing).

That said, I don't think the concerns about this film and this guy are really driven by antiwar sentiment.

I think a lot of the concerns about the film and the guy are driven by reaction to the whackiness on the right, that want to make Kyle and all soldiers "heros" and extend that "heroism" to the entire stupid clusterfuck of a war. But I think a better response to that hero-worship isn't "he was a bad guy, a pathological liar, a child-killer..." is "watch the movie, and look how screwed up he and others got. Do we really want to do this to our own people?"

I will add that I'm very glad I saw the movie in a place like SF. I would guess that, in a number of theaters, people cheer and shout when Kyle shoots people, including the woman and kid he shoots in the beginning of the movie. (Sort of the way I heard soldiers cheering, in the theater where I saw Platoon, when a US soldier beat a Vietnamese teenager to death.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Thank you -- I appreciate the rational response. I expect that some of the book is fictionalized (haven't read it). And the mental health issues are really at the core of this -- which, honestly, the movie brings out pretty well, but are getting drowned in the noise. After all, the guy was murdered by another vet who he was trying to help.

I'm not recommending the movie -- I went because my 14-yo wanted to see it. I just don't understand the craziness about it, and I think condemning someone as a pathological liar (which you seem to have done), or a war criminal (as Ty seems to have done) based on drunken stories and machoness, or even based on overstatements about what he did in the war, is just too much.

I think a lot of the lies were on national television, in print, and in other places that go a bit beyond a drunken story with some pals. Still, his lies probably weren't as outrageous as Bush's.

You're still not clever.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I will add that I'm very glad I saw the movie in a place like SF. I would guess that, in a number of theaters, people cheer and shout when Kyle shoots people, including the woman and kid he shoots in the beginning of the movie. (Sort of the way I heard soldiers cheering, in the theater where I saw Platoon, when a US soldier beat a Vietnamese teenager to death.)

There was a story over the weekend about a Muslim woman getting harassed pretty badly at a showing. Maybe we should just be like France and ban Muslim headdress for their own safety. Ah, Freedom!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think a lot of the lies were on national television, in print, and in other places that go a bit beyond a drunken story with some pals.

Which ones? Seriously, that's what I'm trying to figure out. You've identified things like the profits of the book going to charity... but that appears to be from the family, not from him. And the shooting people in New Orleans, but I can't tell what the source of that is, other than it not being directly from him.

The Jesse Ventura story was in the book, and that is bizarre.

You're still not clever.

You seem to be trying to prove that you are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Why do you have such a boner for Chris Kyle?

I was just tying something interesting that I read to a conversation we were having.

The article doesn't even mention him -- just the movie, and the two things are not the same (if you had seen the movie you would known it is plainly fictionalized.)

I dropped a link here explaining just how fictionalized.

A few days ago you said Chris Kyle was a "liar" -- noting that he had lost a defamation suit.

I think that was GGG, but perhaps I was referring to something he wrote. I didn't know about the defamation suit until he brought it up.

The defamation suit was brought by Jesse Ventura, who alleged that Kyle's story about an encounter with Ventura was false. It went to trial after Chris Kyle was dead. Do you think there is any chance that a jury, that had to decide who was telling the truth about a conversation -- the oh-so-popular plaintiff Jesse Ventura, or the dead defendant -- might have gotten that wrong?

Sure.

I saw American Sniper today (and was going to post about it, then saw your post). I cannot understand why anyone, right or left, is making such a fuss. The movie does not depict Kyle simply as a hero; it depicts him as an ass to his family, unable to leave the war, and a few other negative things -- and also as a guy who was very, very good at his particular job, and who (as a sniper) felt responsible for watching over American soldiers.

If the movie depiction of him was accurate (either as a reflection of the man or a reflection of the book, or both), then the guy clearly had difficulty with some of the things he did. His first kill (in the movie) was of a young boy who was carrying a bomb towards US soldiers. He didn't celebrate it, he wasn't happy, but he shot the kid to prevent the killing of US soldiers. Could you have done that? Could you say that he should not have? He also did not hate Iraqis; he referred to al Qaeda et al as "savages" but he also put his life at risk to try and save Iraqis from them.

I also cannot understand the fuss on the right. The movie itself is critical of the war, and of Kyle's attitude and what happened to him.

btw, the movie isn't great -- the script is a little silly. Though Cooper is pretty damn good.

If you are going to tell me that your problem with Kyle is that he hates Iraqis or takes joy in killing or anything else, then let me know if you are basing that on what his book actually said or just on what people have said about his book (often, as I've seen, after admitting that they hadn't read it but were just basing it on what they were told).

Without seeing the movie (which I haven't), one can think there is something wrong with choosing to celebrate and airbrush the real Kyle. I was reacting to this piece. I suspect you agree completely with the last paragraph:

There is no room for the idea that Kyle might have been a good soldier but a bad guy; or a mediocre guy doing a difficult job badly; or a complex guy in a bad war who convinced himself he loved killing to cope with an impossible situation; or a straight-up serial killer exploiting an oppressive system that, yes, also employs lots of well-meaning, often impoverished, non-serial-killer people to do oppressive things over which they have no control. Or that Iraqis might be fully realised human beings with complex inner lives who find joy in food and sunshine and family, and anguish in the murders of their children. Or that you can support your country while thinking critically about its actions and its citizenry. Or that many truths can be true at once.

Since then, I've read this review, which makes a lot of good points. It sounds like the movie does a good job at showing some hard truths about the effects of the war on our soldiers. It's too bad that Eastwood fictionalized things to avoid other hard truths.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Without seeing the movie (which I haven't), one can think there is something wrong with choosing to celebrate and airbrush the real Kyle. I was reacting to this piece. I suspect you agree completely with the last paragraph:

There is no room for the idea that Kyle might have been a good soldier but a bad guy; or a mediocre guy doing a difficult job badly; or a complex guy in a bad war who convinced himself he loved killing to cope with an impossible situation; or a straight-up serial killer exploiting an oppressive system that, yes, also employs lots of well-meaning, often impoverished, non-serial-killer people to do oppressive things over which they have no control. Or that Iraqis might be fully realised human beings with complex inner lives who find joy in food and sunshine and family, and anguish in the murders of their children. Or that you can support your country while thinking critically about its actions and its citizenry. Or that many truths can be true at once.

Not really. While I agree with those sentiments, they don't seem to be about this movie. Whoever wrote that seems to be talking about a different movie (and the piece suggests that he only saw the trailer, and is building his critique on what other people, who also seem not to have seen the movie, have said about it).

Kyle comes across as a mediocre guy (a half-assed cowboy with no real life plan and serious anger management problems), who joins the SEALS and has a talent as a sniper, who cares a lot about protecting other soldiers and is at least some times very disturbed about where that leads (i.e., shooting a kid who is holding a bomb).


The piece you cite quotes this statement from Salon:

In Kyle’s version of the Iraq war, the parties consisted of Americans, who are good by virtue of being American, and fanatic Muslims whose ‘savage, despicable evil’ led them to want to kill Americans simply because they are Christians.

Again, not the movie that I saw. In the movie (no idea if this occurred in real life), Kyle risks his life to try to prevent the killing of an Iraqi family by an al Qaeda operative. His references to "savages" are not about Iraqis, but about the al Qaeda fighters (often, pointedly, not Iraqis) and largely concern what they are doing to Iraqis.

Since then, I've read this review, which makes a lot of good points. It sounds like the movie does a good job at showing some hard truths about the effects of the war on our soldiers. It's too bad that Eastwood fictionalized things to avoid other hard truths.

It did a fair job about showing some hard truths. Eastwood fictionalized things for lots of reasons, I suspect, but probably mainly to make it a commercially successful movie. (IMHO he's very overrated as a director, except when he did Bird.) It had a lot of weaknesses as a movie (an important plot line -- Kyle vs. the al Qaeda sniper -- was stupid). Again -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about, but feel like it's the right painting an icon and the left reacting to that in a misdirected way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think Ty is also much more invested in hating the guy.

I'm much more interested in the people who are making him a hero than I am in him. I certainly don't hate the guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Not really. While I agree with those sentiments, they don't seem to be about this movie.

You've seen it and I haven't.

It did a fair job about showing some hard truths. Eastwood fictionalized things for lots of reasons, I suspect, but probably mainly to make it a commercially successful movie. (IMHO he's very overrated as a director, except when he did Bird.) It had a lot of weaknesses as a movie (an important plot line -- Kyle vs. the al Qaeda sniper -- was stupid). Again -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about, but feel like it's the right painting an icon and the left reacting to that in a misdirected way.

It sounds unfair to criticize Eastwood for not making a different movie about other hard truths. On the other hand, I take the point of that review to be that in order to get Americans to want to see a movie about the war, you have to fictionalize (i.e., misrepresent) key facts about what happened, facts that would point to some hard truths we don't want to hear. Movies are commercial -- that's an indictment at least as much of the audience than the director.

It's not like this is unique to Eastwood. Zero Dark Thirty showed torture producing valuable information. No one wants to see a movie where Americans torture people for no useful purpose.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not like this is unique to Eastwood. Zero Dark Thirty showed torture producing valuable information. No one wants to see a movie where Americans torture people for no useful purpose.

The two movies were worlds apart on that issue. Zero Dark Thirty essentially promoted the use of torture, misrepresenting its value. That was, in my view, infuriating. (That said, as a movie it was better because it didn't have a silly manufactured plot line.)

American Sniper did, in my view, do anything like that.

[Atticus Grinch]

IMHO most people are repulsed at the thought of killing, and even NRA jackasses are a lot of big talk. When we specifically train a person to overcome that repulsion, we owe him or her a duty of compassion because I doubt you ever see the world in quite the same way again. Weirdly, even though we live in a world of talk-it-out therapy, the healthiest war vets I know say things like “I saw a lot of terrible things” but refuse to go into details. They swallow it all, and other than waking up in pools of sweat a couple of times a month, they seem to lead normal lives. I wonder if we’ll one day realize that you can’t talk-therapy your way out of PTSD, and that denial and repression are actually legitimate tools of healing.

But we want this fantasy that Mr. Rogers was once a death-dealing badass, and it’s probably true that if you give your youth to the military, we should have an option for staying in your whole life on a “we broke it we bought it” theory.