That's what Mickey Kaus is arguing, in a paean to Bill O'Reilly, over at Slate.  He goes so far as to say that Bourne made him "feel guilty," in part because "the film is unredeemed by any sense that America or the American government ever stands for or does anything that is right." (He also points out, rather ominously, that "[i]t is a big hit overseas," nevermind it grossing pretty damn high in the US.)

Leaving aside the question of whether it's ludicrous to expect an action movie filmed entirely in shaky-cam to convey a coherent, well-thought-out message, or whether Kaus is right about the lack of a this particular kind of message in the film, does every movie really have to "redeem" itself by showing the American government do something right?  Especially when that movie is about a patently implausible, for-your-entertainment-only CIA black-op that is more an excuse for explosions and (totally awesome) car chases than anything else?

Kaus also leaves out the most important question of all: how do the CIA assets all manage to coordinate things so that the day they're assigned their various anti-Bourne missions is always exactly one day since they last shaved?