Last night the bride and I made it out to the multiplex to see “The Good Shepherd.” Since thoughtful people like Larry King had hailed the movie as “THE BEST SPY MOVIE EVER,” I had high hopes. Sadly, I found it tedious and dull. I guess there’s a certain film-making virtuosity required to make the founding days of the CIA boring, but this is one kind of creative genius that I failed to appreciate.

But I come here today not to review “The Good Shepherd,” nor to debate its merits with the movie’s fans. Rather there is a scene in the film that warrants some discussion for what it says about our present-day political circumstances. A warning for those who intend to see the movie – one could call what follows a plot spoiler, although I would counter that since the movie has no discernible plot, spoiling it would be impossible. Regardless, the discussion ahead will discuss a particular scene in some detail, a scene that one might call the dramatic zenith of the film.

THE SCENE IN QUESTION involves the American interrogation of a Russian officer who wants to defect to the United States. Up until that point, “The Good Shepherd” has had no action scenes or incidents of violence. Yes, that’s right – the movie made it through World War II and the initial days of the Cold War without anything resembling excitement. The Soviet defector’s identity is suspect, and it is a matter of some import that the CIA determine whether or not he’s on the level.

The American interrogation squad, led by a CIA henchman portrayed by John Turturo, plays rough with their new-found asset. Turturo begins with a couple of graphic punches that shatter the guy’s face. From there, things get a little weird.

The guy is stripped naked. The CIA men then put a black hood over his head and proceed to waterboard him. After that, when the guy is still saying stuff that his American interrogators believe to be false, they give him some LSD.

After the waterboarding and the LSD, we know that the Soviet will be honest. And so he spills the beans, beans that we know are true because they are the result of mind-altering drugs and medieval torture. He tells us that the Soviet Union is a paper tiger. Everything is rusting and there are no spare parts. The country is no threat to the United States. Yet the United States has to treat the Soviet Union as a bona fide threat for the well-being of our domestic military-industrial complex.

I found it impossible to see this scene without thinking of the context provided by the film’s stars as they’ve made their publicity junket chatting with the Larry King set. Robert DeNiro and Matt Damon, in particular, have shown themselves to be hostile to our current war effort.

The scene itself is evocative not only of our waterboarding controversies but also of Abu Ghraib. The image of a naked prisoner being forced to don a black hood was a heavy-handed way of drawing a parallel between the film’s factually challenged history lesson and current-day events.

THE FILMMAKERS’S IGNORANCE REGARDING THE dangers the Soviet Union posed is sadly predictable. Almost two generations of Eastern Europeans who lived without freedom would probably take a different view regarding the Soviet menace. The fact that the statements in the movie were made while Stalin was putting the finishing touches on his purges only highlights the Hollywood set’s comfortably numb obtuseness.

But that’s merely grating and annoying. What’s most chilling about the scene is what it says about modern-day limousine-liberalism. With its ostentatious conjuring of the current struggle, the scene implies that people like DeNiro and Damon have convinced themselves that 9/11 was a one-off and that the danger posed by Radical Islam is a myth.

How populous are such people? Here’s a hint. John Edwards is one of America’s savviest and most ambitious politicians. When he announced his candidacy for President, he listed five priorities. None of them mentioned Radical Islam, the war on terror, or any other concern that tangentially touched on national defense.

This isn’t necessarily because John Edwards feels Radical Islam and terrorism aren’t major concerns. He may, he may not. The only thing we know for sure is that John Edwards isn’t in the game to reveal his true heart or his deepest feelings. He plays to win.

In other words, John Edwards will offer the message that he thinks is likely to sell the best. And he’s concluded that terrorism and national defense aren’t even on the Democrats’ collective radar screen. It’s worth noting at this point that there are more of them right now than there are of us. The Democrats won the last election, and it wasn’t exactly a squeaker.

Has American liberalism really decided that only thing we have to fear is the lack of guaranteed health care? John Edwards thinks so, and far be it from me to disagree with such a political titan.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com