I thought this film was evenly balanced in its politics. It gives both sides an equal say in the matter on the war on terror.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

doing something instead of nothing ?
redford said nothing about oil
he said nothing about fake WMDs
he said nothing about torture
he said nothing about america making hay while the sun shines
what redford made is disgusting propaganda

This message has been deleted.

They think it's liberal for three reasons: 1) Redford's involvement. What else could it be? 2) The journalist fairly effectively and consistently punches holes in the senator's arguments. 3) Most importantly, the two soldiers/friends who enlist to fight in Afghanistan and to make a difference in the world end up dying in utter futility over a God-forsaken snowy ridge that is part of some grand new military strategy. They are admirable only in their dedication to one another, not to the US government.
But folks should be careful here. Opposition to the continuation of the war in Afghanistan cuts across party affiliations. Republicans in the last election didn't push this cause, because it was a loser. Plenty of conservatives would agree with the basic tone and thematic core of this movie. Continuing to prop up the Karzai government makes as little sense now as it did when this movie was made.

Give the liberal credentials of some of the actors and its director, this film was rather more balanced than anticipated.
Now if Oliver Stone was directing
Its that man again!!

Maybe because one of the liberal characters is also the director.
I thought it was OK overall, but I only watch the scenes with Cruise vs. Streep. They kick.

The movie was balanced until the end when it clearly unveiled its liberal leanings. Also don't you think it is a little liberal to have the corrupt character be a republican.

Yeah, it was definitely a conservative movie. Both Cruise and Redford played major conservatives here. Redford was worse, practically pleading that the handsome young man (and the audience) go away to war, because "it's doing something." I'm not convinced that it's doing anything; in fact, I opposed the invasion of Iraq to begin with.

I thought the movie was conservative. I was actually starting to agree with Senator and honest couldnt understand why Meryl Streep's character though he was "wrong". Yeah he's a beep but he had a plan which sounded plausible. He was able to grit his teeth and make the hard choices. I lean liberal on most issues but we cant always be peaceful with our enemies. In my mind this "War on Terror" started off all wrong but we cant change that now. Its too late to say "sorry". We have to make the hard decisions.

i could not agree with the op more!
now, please keep in mind i tend to lean more towards the GOP views on things (especially in matters of nat'l defense) and voted republican the last three timesbut i am also a huge fan of film in general but my one constant gripe is the liberal leaning in all moviesso we got a movie that touches on war themes in the middle east in the present day, oh yeah, my liberal alarm bell was ringingr.redford directing, oh boy, liberal bell going bananasmeryl streep, liberal bell exploded
HOWEVER, after watching this i did not take it to have the typical liberal spin that all other hollywood movies take.not at all! what i did find is that there is something for everyone regardless of your political affiliations
streep was the yang to cruise's yingthe way cruise discussed the hipocritical role of the media in covering the war, the errors made in flashing 'mission accomplished' signs on aircraft carriers, the importance in acknowledging the fact that this enemy is a new kind of enemy that must be dealt with differently but MUST be dealt with
streep - the liberal reporter - calls her own medium out when she returns to her boss and says, we all knew what was going on and we did nothing (which i think we can agree is the underlying theme of the movie)
cruise was not portrayed as two faced, or a liarstreep's revelation upon reading the caption underneath one of cruise's office photos was merely that cruise might (would) use HIS new war strategy as a jumping off point to the presidency one daythat does not mean he was two faced at allhis strategy would only be a good jumping off point IF IT SUCCEEDEDso he believed in what he was doing and there is every probability that it was going to succeed.
as for the boys junior year plan.i'm on the fence here about which way the film is learningas we know they had three options for all juniors..joining the army was just one of thembut if, during their presentation, they dropped down a letter saying they joined the peace corp, that'd've been a very boring ending.yes, going to war and suffering the ending they did, seems to be the liberal poster for not joining the armybut i don't knowthese boys joined up for the most altruistic of reasons.
oddly enough, in RL, the boys' junior year plan would be a better one than in the movie
i was very pleased that this movie was not the usualno, it wasn't a great movie, but i did enjpy it, and i enjoyed that it actually made me see another side of things, and i'm a stubborn jackass.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

This message has been deleted.

This movie got lousy ratings, and now I see all kinds of bashing comments
I for one, really enjoyed this movie, it had a good combination of action, drama, great actors (even if you don't like cruise, there was Redford, Pena, Berg, Streep)
Very interesting topic, I don't find it was conservative or liberal, this movie sort of show both ends of the story.

This message has been deleted.

Two words Robert Redford.

The movie is really about decisions and doing something instead of nothing.
A part of the movie was in fact devoted to that message.
The devil is in the details.
Watch it again while pretending to be totally bi-partisan. Tell me then you don't notice the (not so)subtle innuendo aimed at furthering this lame liberal sentiment.

Because sometimes when conservative values are placed out in the open, they seem to lack foundation. Whether or not its the result of the Senator supposedly being a liar, I'm not so sure. His position resonates which much of America -and his reasoning was pretty clear -how many times has American tucked in its tail and whimpered back home after receiving a scratch? Isn't this the best time to take a stand, and refuse to loose? Its not like conflicts will get any easier.
If anything, I figured the movie had a conservative sense to it, and I found myself starting to agree with the Senator. His position and mindset was so clearly laid out that even if one didn't agree, you couldn't help but understand it through and through. I found the 'opposing' viewpoints to be too subtle, intellectual and vague to get a concrete grasp. I kept wanting to ask Streep, "Well, what would you want us to do instead? Stay, or leave?" She probably would have responded exactly the same way she did to Cruisejust sort of mumbling nothing of value.
While two of the 3 main characters were liberal, I do think Cruise was able to communicate his point of view such that there could have been 10 other people, and the conservative message would have still been more understandable.

i could not agree with the op more!
now, please keep in mind i tend to lean more towards the GOP views on things (especially in matters of nat'l defense) and voted republican the last three timesbut i am also a huge fan of film in general but my one constant gripe is the liberal leaning in all moviesso we got a movie that touches on war themes in the middle east in the present day, oh yeah, my liberal alarm bell was ringingr.redford directing, oh boy, liberal bell going bananasmeryl streep, liberal bell exploded
HOWEVER, after watching this i did not take it to have the typical liberal spin that all other hollywood movies take.not at all! what i did find is that there is something for everyone regardless of your political affiliations
streep was the yang to cruise's yingthe way cruise discussed the hipocritical role of the media in covering the war, the errors made in flashing 'mission accomplished' signs on aircraft carriers, the importance in acknowledging the fact that this enemy is a new kind of enemy that must be dealt with differently but MUST be dealt with
streep - the liberal reporter - calls her own medium out when she returns to her boss and says, we all knew what was going on and we did nothing (which i think we can agree is the underlying theme of the movie)
cruise was not portrayed as two faced, or a liarstreep's revelation upon reading the caption underneath one of cruise's office photos was merely that cruise might (would) use HIS new war strategy as a jumping off point to the presidency one daythat does not mean he was two faced at allhis strategy would only be a good jumping off point IF IT SUCCEEDEDso he believed in what he was doing and there is every probability that it was going to succeed.
as for the boys junior year plan.i'm on the fence here about which way the film is learningas we know they had three options for all juniors..joining the army was just one of thembut if, during their presentation, they dropped down a letter saying they joined the peace corp, that'd've been a very boring ending.yes, going to war and suffering the ending they did, seems to be the liberal poster for not joining the armybut i don't knowthese boys joined up for the most altruistic of reasons.
oddly enough, in RL, the boys' junior year plan would be a better one than in the movie
i was very pleased that this movie was not the usualno, it wasn't a great movie, but i did enjpy it, and i enjoyed that it actually made me see another side of things, and i'm a stubborn jackass.
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it

Yeah, there's a conservative character but he's made out to look like a two face liar.
Jack@ass

I don't know. Perhaps I should watch it again, but I thought it rather sucked

Usually when someone says it's balanced, and that they are conservative to add "validity" to their point is full of Sh*t. this film is not balanced, and the fact that it tanked at the box office so badly, just makes it even funnier.

I agree with you and you reminded me of this video that I saw a clip of on Fox News the other day. I put the link below. I also felt that even if they had given a fair representation of the conservative side that it still would have felt unbalanced because it seemed the rights had to defend themselves the entire time against the lefts and liberals weren't wrong about anything and they knew all the answersas usual. I did like how Streep's boss tried to put her in her place though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU
I think beep just happens, but that's just me.

"There are soldiers who have done multiple tours in Iraq, been injured, and then requested to go back and serve moreamazing individuals".
Amazing individuals, indeed. Many of these soldiers want to go back because they want to be with their buddies, and they want to help ensure that they all get home safely, not because they believe in the "cause".

All the images show how brutal and futile war really is. It's about how destructive it all is to the people who fight it. It certainly is an anti-war film, and Spielberg has said so.
To be fair, there's no such thing as an honest pro-war film. Real war is brutal, futile and grizzly. If you really want to win a war, you kill the leaders not the pawns.
Any "pro-war" movie is likely just propaganda, like Call of Duty. Glorifying the glitz and adrenaline of "fighting the good fight".
Real war is just a larger scale gang fight where both sides justify the need to kill each other.
If there's an honest pro-war film out there then it's just a nationalized color-and-stripes version of a pro-gang film (although, I don't think I've ever seen a pro-gang film or know of one that exists).

Saving Private Ryan was about America's entrance into the WWII, and the sacrifices. It made no attempt to show that those actions were futile, just that they had human consequences, some good and some bad.
All the images show how brutal and futile war really is. It's about how destructive it all is to the people who fight it. It certainly is an anti-war film, and Spielberg has said so.