Thursday, May 10, 2007

Jon Voight speaks out against anti-war propaganda

Well, well, had no idea Jon Voight was one of the Hollywood few with a modicum of intelligence. He was recently interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor about his views on the War in Iraq and the broader implications. Remember, it's not easy to be vocal about your conservative politics in Hollywood, so it's a very brave thing for him to do!

He was also interviewed by Radar magazine, recently, after a visit to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Some very interesting comments!

Do you think it's possible to win the Iraq War?
Here's what I think: this is a real war, extended beyond the borders of Iraq.

As in the more general war on terror?
The war on terror is real. People would have you believe it's not real. This is not Vietnam. This particular situation is not the same wherein we can walk away and just leave destruction behind us. No, we can't. Anyone who has paid attention to what [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad is saying, what all the mullahs are saying in this country and in England, and in all of the Arab world, this is serious—they're calling for the destruction of America and all democracy and that's what's going on. We could lose this war.

Was the Iraq war part of the war on terror before we got there?
I'm interested in talking about this, but it's been so politicized, it's very disturbing, very dangerous. My view of it is this: they say our president lied to us. Well, he didn't lie to us, everybody else had the information he had, and they voted for that tactic.

Even if you disapprove of the war, it seems pretty clear that simply pulling the troops out might not be the best option.

More than that, the war does not end. When we look around and see the evidence of what is being done and the preparations that are being made to disrupt our country and to destroy it. This growing cancer of fanaticism, it's like 1938—it's very, very

To the Third Reich?

Islamic fundamentalism?
Whatever you call it, the things that are being said are very similar. It's a matter of whether we recognize that or go into a cocoon and make our own little drama. Do you know what I'm saying? We're debating things instead of recognizing that the real fundamental aspect is that we're at war with a very vicious, very clever enemy.

Bravo Jon, for speaking out!


MUD said...

Jon for President! Sounds like he can talk the talk. MUD

Anonymous said...

Good Find! Way to go Angelina's Dad!

Incognito said...

Actually, MUD, why not?! :-)

Hey ODP! He has come a long way. Just proves people can change.

cameron_willis said...

Huh. He barely knows what he is talking about, one decent actor speaking to one blubbering thuggish fool. The historically inaccurate and clumsy comparisons between modern Islamist movements and Nazi Germany really need to end, soon, please.

Incognito said...

Ah, yes, Cameron, that's precious coming from a leftist, who so totally identifies with the modern Islamic imperialistic agenda. I love the word usage 'movement'. Says it all.

I would agree, however, that O'reilly can be a bit of a boob, as can be Rush, at times. At times. They both can be arrogant, but make salient points about the world's troubles.

cameron_willis said...

I fail to see how calling something a 'movement' is uniquely 'leftist', or supportive of Islamist groups or groups expousing a militant fundamentalism or somehow, as you seem to imply, suggests a solidarity between my political views, whatever they may be, and say, the Muslim Brothers in Egypt. Movement as a term of political, sociological or historical study, is neutral; it describes a popular social or political trend with popular or mass appeal, that is often organised around specific goals and has specific leadership. Sometimes it is also organised around a political party, but not always. The pro-life movement counts, as does the environmentalist. The Sons of Liberty, in colonial America, was certainly a movement, as was the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's, Gandhi's Indian Independence movement, or the revolutionaries in 18th century France. Many working-class, progressive, socialist and communist groups can also be described as movements. The Nazi Party before it came to power counts too, though, as do the Italian Blackshirts, and certainly groups like the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria, the Muslim Brothers in Egypt and Hamas count, in that they are political parties with considerable appeal and reach beyond just the political arena.

I express a dislike of the poor comparison made by Voight of 2007 to 1938, which it seems was meant more as a swipe at appeasement but clumsily became an attack on "a growing sense of fanaticism." Now, I respect Mr. Voight as an actor, and he can certainly express his opinions, no matter how muddled and imprecise, however much he wants; he is, however, like many other celebrities and movie stars, whether they be George Clooney, Ben Affleck or Kelsey Grammar, particularly inarticulate and muddled in his message (I probably wouldn't be much better!)

I still object to the comparison between fascists of the 1930's and today's Islamist movements because it is imprecise, simplistic and unhelpful towards political discourse and understanding the motivations, rationale and popularity of either the Nazis or Islamists. It is unfortunately a popular comparison for many, especially but in no way limited to conservatives,(as Christopher Hitches might attest) although as a parting shot, I also intensely dislike the comparisons between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany made by leftists, for the same reasons I outlined above.

Incognito said...

Hello again Cameron, First of all I want to thank you for putting forth your opinions in a civil manner. Makes it easier to dialogue this way.

I will concede that the word 'movement' itself is neutral, however 'groups' attached to the various 'movements' are what make them either positive or negative. I find the Islamist movement horrifying and terrifying.

As for the comparison to the fanaticism of Nazism.. it seems more than obvious to me from the various videos, articles, demonstrations aroudn thw world.
There's a video you should watch, though turn off your sound because it's a bit much, but it demonstrates exactly why the world has started to compare the 2 'movements'.


Righty64 said...

I would like to refer those reading this post to Hugh Hewitt's two (2) hour interview with Mr. Voight. Go to It was a really good interview and I think, 2 very important things. 1) Yes, people do change and when they change for the better, we should be with them.
2) Hugh did not bring up the whole relationship with his daughter, Angelina Jolie. That was a classy interview!

Incognito said...

Thanks Righty, for the recommendation. I'll check it out.
And I agree, people can and do change and we should support them.
That's great he didn't bring it up, though I'm not sure John would have said anything. I wonder if their friction has to do with his changed politics.