But your liberal fantasies do indeed amuse me. Anyone who can figure Fair Game to represent anything close to to the truth needs about as much help as anyone who can suppose Left Behind to be an honest, accurate depiction of end times theology. Both are pure Hollywood fiction fluff.

> But your liberal fantasies do indeed amuse me. Anyone who can figure
> Fair Game to represent anything close to to the truth needs about
> as much help as anyone who can suppose Left Behind to be an honest,
> accurate depiction of end times theology. Both are pure Hollywood fiction
> fluff.

Of course, it's embellished, Josh. But the fact of the matter is that there was never any uranium found or a deal with Iraq discovered, both Lewis Libby and Karl Rove were revealed to be Novak's sources, and most pertinently, Novak just shouldn't have done it. That's the bottom line.

I wouldn't expect Christian to respond to your comment. You're clearly too politically intransigent to hear what the other side has to say. There's no point in having that sort of discussion with you.

> Of course, it's embellished, Josh. But the fact of the matter is that
> there was never any uranium found or a deal with Iraq discovered

I won't argue that. But that's a whole different ball of wax.

> Lewis Libby and Karl Rove were revealed to be Novak's sources, and most
> pertinently, Novak just shouldn't have done it. That's the bottom line.

Whether Novak should or shouldn't have done it is history now-- I still think Wilson's theory that his wife was unveiled in retaliation to his "What I Didn't Find in Africa" op-ed to be awfully convenient at best and completely arrogant at worst.

Whether or not one thinks Rove had any involvement in the scandal isn't going to be changed one way or the other, least of all by a popcorn flick. Personally, I happen to believe Mr. Rove's account from his autobiography but there's always a healthy dose of skepticism to be held in check considering this is the world of politics. That skepticism should necessarily extend across both sides of the political spectrum. I had/have many problems with certain policy decision of George W. Bush just as I have with the majority of Barack Obama's legislation.

> I wouldn't expect Christian to respond to your comment.

Nor would I.

> You're clearly too politically intransigent to hear what the other side
> has to say.

So what does that make Christian? Incurably obdurate?

> There's no point in having that sort of discussion with you.

I wasn't asking for that sort of discussion. Merely commenting on how half of Clem's Fair Game film score review isn't even about the score.

> I won't argue that. But that's a whole different ball of wax.

Fair enough.

> Whether Novak should or shouldn't have done it is history now-- I still
> think Wilson's theory that his wife was unveiled in retaliation to his
> "What I Didn't Find in Africa" op-ed to be awfully convenient at
> best and completely arrogant at worst.

So, you think it was just coincidence? I don't think there's anything convenient or arrogant about it...he was rightfully suspicious, given the subject matter of his op-ed and his conclusions, and I don't blame him.

> Whether or not one thinks Rove had any involvement in the scandal isn't
> going to be changed one way or the other, least of all by a popcorn flick.
> Personally, I happen to believe Mr. Rove's account from his autobiography
> but there's always a healthy dose of skepticism to be held in check
> considering this is the world of politics. That skepticism should
> necessarily extend across both sides of the political spectrum. I had/have
> many problems with certain policy decision of George W. Bush just as I
> have with the majority of Barack Obama's legislation.

Oh, absolutely. Neither side is perfect and it's my belief that citizens should remain skeptical of the goings-on in government, and not just accept things at face value.

> Nor would I.

An assumption on my part...

> So what does that make Christian? Incurably obdurate?

Eh, possibly. But you should know how he leans politically by now. I know you've frequented this site longer than I have.

> I wasn't asking for that sort of discussion. Merely commenting on how half
> of Clem's Fair Game film score review isn't even about the score.

Indeed. I was wrong to imply that you were, but you shouldn't be surprised that your response might incite a retaliatory remark. Anyway, again, you shouldn't let his perennially liberal comments get to you. You may not find them pertinent to score reviews, but this is CC's site after all, i.e., he can do and say what he likes. Since most of my views could be aligned with liberal stances, his politically-charged statements generally don't bother me, and more often than not engender a smirk or laughter. However, I can see how they might bother those who have more conservative leanings. I just suggest you try to shrug it off and move on, though.