Oliver Stone - an ultra-liberal pissing on America - movie preview

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

Washington Post part 2 - 2.7.2007.2

Continued from Part 1...

Further, the parable of a military coup, used by those on the extreme left to scare and justify their comments is hardly appropriate. To be on guard of such things is always a good thing. Questioning the authority and decisions of the government is always positive, when done with respect. The 2 are not mutually exclusive as Arkin infers. The threat of a government gone awry is a real question to be wary of, and the threat of terrorism is a fact of life in the 21 century. Arkin may wish to deflect his bile under the slipper slope of a fallacy but the reality of life today will not be deterred by such comments, rather they will be emboldened by them.

Arkin would have uninformed readers believe that the pay to those in the Armed Forces is extravagant. While there is some offset due to a lack of rent (if you live on base in barracks) and free food, and limited free healthcare, this does not extend entirely to any serviceman’s family. Basic pay starts at $14,000. A sergeant has his pay capped at $30,000 after year 12. That means that after 12 years and 5 promotions the pay has moved from poverty to slightly more than the average in America. Also the fact that the military is on-duty 24 hours a day and that means an E-5 (sergeant) makes $3.42 an hour. That’s half of minimum wage while doing almost 4x as much work after 12 years and 5 promotions. No wonder there are so many millionaires made from their pay, or why so many qualify for government pay to help their families survive.

Given all the above I must say that Arkin [yes I have purposefully not added the proper title of Mr. as I do not feel this individual deserves such recognition] is the ugly reminder of what some are capable of doing with the Freedom of Speech, that other bleed and die to protect. The fact that those serving in the Armed Forces are barely paid, and defend the principles of this nation with their lives as opposed to a person who writes commentary under the guise of a title that is unearned, for pay that is, comparatively, enormous and for the benefit of a few radical ideals shared by relatively few, seems to clearly show who is a mercenary.

Not only is Arkin mercenary and ungrateful in his words, he borders on traitorous. I say that as his words give aid and comfort to the enemy. They confer a theme last seen during Viet Nam. I’m speaking of the comments by General Giap, Commander of the North Vietnamese Army after the TET offensive. I’m speaking of how Arkin is setting the ground for other Americans to follow in the footsteps of those during Viet Nam. That mindset caused the hate that was inflicted on soldiers coming home; it caused the defunding of the war and 3,000,000 lives being lost after American troops pulled out. It was the reason why America lost the first war ever. None of these facts are positive for American citizens. In a world of terrorists, portable nuclear weapons, ricin, bioweapons and other threats losing a war means more than embarrassment, it can well mean the lives of innocent Americans. I feel that anyone who advances such an outcome, for nothing more than money and fame, helps our enemies and that is traitorous.

Lastly I wish to remind Arkin, and those that wish to make equally venomous statements, that if the acts of the government or the American Armed Forces (under direction from the government) are so contemptible then they may revoke their American citizenship and leave. Perhaps there is a nation that will accept them. But I would also warn them that the freedom to make such statements will not be allowed in any country I think will accept them. Still I would not mind the loss.

This is what I think, what do you think?