Interpreting Clooney and his movies

Re “Best supporting neocon,” Opinion, March 15

Max Boot nailed it. The only difference between a liberal like George Clooney and a neocon is the courage of their convictions. Clooney has the right idea and speaks truth to power but is unable to translate words into action. Perhaps if he had actually served instead of playing soldier on film, he would join us in the real world, where thousands of American soldiers protect and save the lives of innocents every day.

Instead, Clooney lives in the world of “Hollyweird,” where eight degenerates abusing their authority at Abu Ghraib trump the professionalism, dedication and, dare I say, true idealism of hundreds of thousands of citizen soldiers.

PETER NEWTON

St. Louis

*

Boot assiduously avoids mentioning “Good Night, and Good Luck” in his backhanded compliments for Clooney. Just like a neocon, Boot believes fiction is reality and sees only what he wants to.

PHIL BOIARSKI

Galloway, Ohio

*

I think Boot is delusional. He has extrapolated from Clooney’s movies only those policy fragments that are aligned with his neoconservative worldview. Besides “Syriana” being a protest against Big Oil, it’s a statement against American intervention in the Middle East because things go terribly wrong and actually get worse (Iraq is a perfect example).

“Three Kings,” besides Boot’s neocon interpretation of a lament for leaving Saddam Hussein in power after the 1991 Gulf War, is principally a meditation on how we destroyed a country to save it. Both films suggest President Bush’s foreign policy decisions not only have been ruinous for Iraq and Afghanistan but haven’t made us safer, haven’t protected freedom and continue to create anti-American sentiment. When are we going to see that the neocon worldview is dangerous and should be seriously questioned?

JOSEPH EASTBURN

Culver City