I just read the post you linked to an rewatched the Affleck clip. I was hoping you could point out for me which assertions in particular you take exception to, because I don't see anything objectionable.

Do you really see nothing wrong with selective declassification for the sole purpose of smearing a critic and launching our nation into a war of choice? If so, it's you and the Powerline guys that just don't get it. That's ok though, because 60% of the country DOES get it.
 

No, I have a problem with Ben Affleck presenting himself as an authority on the issue. These are complex happenings. You call it selective declassification to "smear" a "critic". The administration would call it setting the record straight to educate the public on the need for military action. And your war of choice comment is ridiculously simplistic. Every war is a war of choice. You can choose to fight or not. You obviously do not think the threat was worth military action. But it's simplistic to just write off any arguments that Iraq's activities were worthy of military action.
 

I have a problem with Ben Affleck presenting himself as an authority on the issue. These are complex happenings.
Gee, and here I thought that liberals were the elitists.

Give me a break. Maybe Affleck would have a problem with YOU claiming to be some kind of authority. These "happenings" are not so complex that ordinary people can't understand them. Again, I challenge you to point to a specific assertion that you find objectionable.

It isn't useful for you to parrot official administration explanations: we've all been hearing them for years and the fact that this conversation continues is a strong indicator that the American people aren't buying it.

I still don't understand the point of you guys bashing Affleck.

A point of clarification: Bush often says that going to war with Iraq was a last resort. When I say Iraq is a "war of choice" I mean that it was NOT a war of last resort, that Iraq did NOT pose an immediate threat to our country, and that the unpleasant situation we now find ourselves in there could have easily been avoided if not for the gross misconduct of this president.

What's REALLY simplistic is taking official administration explanations at face value.
 

Actually, I could be making an elitist argument. I could argue that Affleck's obviously a moron, that he hasn't had a good role since Good Will Hunting, that's he's ridden Damon and Lopez, successively to unwarranted fame, and that he is just generally the type of Hollywood idiot that is far too prevelent today. But I didn't make that argument. Affleck would maybe have a problem with me if I went on a national talk show and presented myself as an authority. But I haven't done that. I'm not an authority on almost anything.

I have a problem with Affleck talking about gerrymandering when he knows nothing about the subject. I have a problem with Affleck talking about Plame when again it is obvious he knows nothing about it. There are many problems I have with the speech. And I'm bashing Affleck for the arrogant, ivory tower, "why doesn't someone do something about this?" attitude.

And, again, I don't take the administration explanations at face value. I present them and others here as reasonable counters for the reasonable alternative explanations. I don't, as you apparently do, dismiss them out of hand.
 

I agree with most of what James just said. What I really had a problem with was the "Bush could be hanged for treason" for leaking classified information, when there is a good argument to be made that the President can declassify information that clearly hadn't occurred to Affleck at all. I wish Ben would just stick to making movies, preferably Kevin Smith movies not titled Jersy Girl. Oh, and he was sweet in Boiler Room, how bout a sequel?