Stone’s ‘W’ Gets An ‘F’ For Accuracy
April 8th, 2008 at 06:13am Matt Margolis
Not that we should have expected anything different from Oliver Stone, but his planned film “about” President Bush apparently has as much accuracy as a Michael Moore documentary:
Reactions to the script from the biographers were mixed. They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.
“It leaves you with the impression that the White House is run as a fraternity house with no reverence for hierarchy, the office itself or for the implications of policy,” said Robert Draper, author of “Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush.” “Everybody calling everybody else nicknames and chatting about whether to go to war as if they were chatting about how to bet on a football game really misses the mark of how many White Houses, including this one, are run.”
Jacob Weisberg (”The Bush Tragedy”) was skeptical about Stone’s claim that he wants to make “a fair, true portrait” of Bush. “His saying he is going to be fair to Bush is like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest,” Weisberg quipped.
[..]
In the script — then titled “Bush” — the president’s policy judgments are often manipulated by his White House staff, a depiction several of the biographers said did not ring true.
“The problem here is it goes to this notion of Bush as being the passive receiver of policy and the White House being run by (Dick) Cheney, (Donald) Rumsfeld, (Karl) Rove and others,” Draper said. “Bush’s adversaries have been ill-served by this belief that Bush is an observer to his own presidency. This notion that his schedule is driven by what’s on ESPN is ludicrous.”
This is just a sad attempt at liberal Hollywood trying to define Bush’s presidency with their usual lies, but I’m guessing that you won’t see Bush do to Oliver Stone what the Clintons did prior to the premier of “The Path To 9/11″ back in 2006…
With no date for the release, questions are being raised about whether political pressure is behind its current status as a stalled or discarded DVD project. The reasons are murky, but the miniseries’ writer, Cyrus Nowrasteh, believes it’s crystal clear: Powerful forces are out to protect Bill Clinton’s presidential legacy and shield Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) from any potential collateral damage in her bid for the White House.
Nowrasteh, also one of the miniseries’ many producers, said he was told by a top executive at ABC Studios that “if Hillary weren’t running for president, this wouldn’t be a problem.”
Oliver Stone won’t define Bush’s legacy. History will. And history will look back favorably on Bush’s presidency, no matter how much Hollywood and the Democratic Party tries to distort it.
Entry Filed under: Media
60 Comments
1. D. R. Tucker | April 8th, 2008 at 6:18 am
I still can’t believe some dope actually gave him millions to make this future bomb…
2. Some Assembly Required | April 8th, 2008 at 6:40 am
“And history will look back favorably on Bush’s presidency, no matter how much Hollywood and the Democratic Party tries to distort it.”
Delusions of grandeur my friend…
History will look back at how the economy tanked, the credit crunch and mortgage crisis, the two front war which passes the mess of Iraq onto the next president, the break down of the constitution, the inherent corruption, New Orleans, The missing white house e-mails… etc, etc, etc
History is not bias, unlike your worldview which is slipping more and more everyday.
“They said specific scenes are largely based in fact but noted that the screenplay contains inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of Bush and his inner circle.”
This is simply Hollywood. Any true story which is re-told in the form of a movie is based on fact but characters are often exaggerated for entertainment value. Which is ultimately what Hollywood is, an Entertainment industry, not a credible news agency (if there is such a thing anymore) by any means.
3. Bull | April 8th, 2008 at 6:45 am
many people with extreme BDS will probably love this movie and tout it as 100% acurate. much like the movie JFK, nixon, or michael moore’s f-9/11 movie, those who want to believe it’s “factuality” will.
4. TIredofLibBullShit | April 8th, 2008 at 6:52 am
To perpetuate the liberal lies, “documentaries” such as those from Michael Moore and Al Gore come to mind.
This tactic always adds “legitimacy” to these propaganda snippets in order for the simple minded useful idiots to believe them.
Fortunately, they tried doing the same with Reagan and the protests of inaccuracies were loud and many that they quickly yanked it.
For the proprietors of fantasy, they must me running out of creative thought, hence all the remakes and political propaganda.
Why is Hollywood in bed with the liberal propaganda machine?
5. Diane Tomlinson | April 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Okay Margolis that was a nice piece of fan fiction [how can you grade a film that's not in the can based on a script that hasn't been revised during the shoot? Oh that's right none of you guys ever made a film, sorry] but let me ask you this as a person who has been to the White House and knows better. If and this is a big if, a senior advisor to the President were to sit you down and tell you what exactly the process and motivations behind the Iraq War would you come out and tell the truth if it didn’t paint Bush and the GOP in a positive light?
You are right history will dtermine what the legacy of George W bush is and the victors write history. I imagine Margolis that you are a fan of how the Soviets used to send someone to Siberia and lay waste to their whole family and then right before they are about to starve someone stands up at a meeting of the congress of the people’s Deputies and “rehabilitates” them. The problem with democracies for people like you with authoritarian personalities is that democracies allow the truth to come out as theose that can be hurt by it personally die off. Americans know more about truman than they did in the 1980s; they also know more about Nixon and Billy Graham than they did in the early 1990s. And I am sure that more about Bill Clintion will be known in 2020 than is today. That’s how the process of history works.
I’m no huge fan of Stone but I do thank him for his service in Vietnam [Bronze Star with Combat V and Purple Heart times 2. Stone served exactly 549 more days in country than George W Bush did] and did enjoy JFK and Nixon but I think his best work was clearly Platoon [1986] and Natural Born Killers [1994] but that is another story for another time. The W film will be impossible for him to make as an honest homage noir as Nixon was or even as a critical analysis with a slice of life as the garrison based JFK was. All of you there in America are too close to this glowing meteorite of polarization that the Bush presidency has been from the outset to even judge honestly. Historians will take at least ten years to go over what the Bush exit team allows the National Archives to have and it may be 100 years before anyone knows the truth. That truth will be the Bush legacy whether in whole or redacted.
I do like the casting of Thandie Newton as Condi Rice but you all know how I feel about pretty girls, right boys?
6. Pain | April 8th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Seriously we all know that only Leni Riefenstahl could do justice directing a film about the Bush presidency.
7. Some Assembly Required | April 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
“Why is Hollywood in bed with the liberal propaganda machine?”
The bush administration just makes it to easy… I mean really, can you imagine a big budget film about Bill Clinton’s indiscretions? It’d flop no question. But films about 9/11 (both by the way were not liberal propaganda), New Orleans, Iraq, Bush (when his approval ratings are at 19%) will sell… It also doesn’t help his cause when republicans claim moral superiority over everything. It just makes movies much easier to sell. Thats the bottom line with Hollywood. It’s not about political parties. If a Liberal did the same things Bush did there would be movies about them as well. The fact is when Liberals mess up it’s not entertaining, it’s just sad and often expected.
8. Magnum Serpentine | April 8th, 2008 at 8:12 am
History will view george as the worse president in the history of the United States. And I am looking forward to seeing this film.
9. Bigfoot | April 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
In the not-too-distant future, a grad student will be able write a master’s thesis by comparing the real George W. Bush and his presidency to the respective caricatures put forth by the left.
10. Canadian Observer | April 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
12. Bigfoot | April 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
In the not-too-distant future, a grad student will be able write a master’s thesis by comparing the real George W. Bush and his presidency to the respective caricatures put forth by the left.
……………..and like GWB, receive a failing grade.
11. Zach | April 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I actually read Robert Drapers book on President Bush.
I enjoyed it quite a bit.
While reading that I gained much respect and admiration for President Bush, although I must say, there are things in that book that show alot of disorganization within his administration, alot of the time he took the blame for, right between the eyes. But thats what leaders do.
I cant see Obama or Hillary being a true leader.
They may be smart, they may be well-intentioned. I do dont see leadership qualities there.
12. kimberly4victory | April 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Not sure where my other post went …
“Stone has gone on record to insist that the film will be an accurate and fair portrait of Bush the man, though the conundrum that he poses in the film carries, it must be said, a degree of TOP SPIN. In Stone’s own words, the film will address the question: “How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?”
A wealth of detail into the approach Stone will be taking in W (pronounced in true Texan style “dubya”) has been revealed by ABC News which has read an early copy of the screenplay. The news outlet describes it as a “warts- and-all portrayal” of the president, though judging by its account of the script it might more accurately be called a “warts-and-yet-more-warts” portrait.
But then, judging by his previous presidential efforts, Nixon and JFK, historical objectivity has never been one of Stone’s personal hang-ups. The writing team appears to have pored through a by now considerable library of books and magazine articles on Bush and plucked out all the tastiest RUMORS and juiciest morsels of GOSSIP. There are plenty of Bushisms in the script, and scenes of him drinking vodka and orange cocktails.”
The liberals are going to salivate over this one, and most likely, believe every part of it.
My cousin, the only liberal in our family (because she married one), actually believed Moore’s F911 to be factual. Then I gave her documentation that proved it wasn’t.
It’s sad because she used to think for herself.
13. Almiranta | April 8th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I can’t believe that the resident radicals are still whining about Bush’s service in Viet Nam. The National Guard is, was, and always has been an important part of American military service—is, was, and always has been both legally and morally acceptable as a means of serving and protecting this country—is, was, and always has been an honorable and legitimate branch of American Armed Forces.
The silly, petty sniveling of the anti-Bush people because THEY have decided that AT THAT POINT IN TIME the Air National Guard was dishonorable and illegtimate as a form of military service is very tiresome—though yet another unwelcome glimpse into the fetid feverswamp of uber-Lib delusion.
Speaking of the fetid feverswamp of uber-Lib delusion, SAR goes into a typical whining BDS rant referring to, as he puts it; “…how the economy tanked, the credit crunch and mortgage crisis, the two front war which passes the mess of Iraq onto the next president, the break down of the constitution, the inherent corruption, New Orleans, The missing white house e-mails… etc, etc, etc.”
Yeah, but the economy hasn’t “tanked”, 96% of mortgage holders are paying their mortgages and the rest got hit by a totally predictable rise in their monthly payments because they were irresponsible in signing on for more than they could pay, there is no “break down in the constitution”, the “inherent corruption” he refers to exists mostly in that afore-mentioned feverswamp, the New Orleans fiasco has been firmly and permanently determined to be the fault of incompetent Louisiana (Democrat) officials, whatever White House e-mails may or may not be “missing” is of very little import (maybe they will be found in a box in the family living quarters with Bush’s fingerprints all over them…)
The “two front wars” WILL be passed on to the next President, who will be judged on how he or she handles them, just as a successful and energized Al-Queda was passed on to Bush. The world does not stop and draw a line before each new American President is inaugurated, giving him or her a clean slate. Bush inherited a recession, which the Libs never mention–and it was a REAL recession, one which met the actual objective criteria of such and not just an Agenda Media construct.
But it is beyond foolish to pretend that if there were no conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan, the next President would be free of any annoying terrorist or anti-terrorist activities. Just as Bush inherited the climate that led to 9/11, any future president will inherit whatever is in the hopper right now. History will decide if this new president got a good deal, in inheriting a much-depleted A-Q which has started to turn off a lot of Muslims who find it too violent, too radical, too distasteful, and too far from the peaceful teachings of Islam, or whether he or she would have been better off just inheriting an A-Q which had a long string of successful attacks against the United States and its citizens, without having to suffer any consequences for those attacks.
In other words, SAR has shown himself to be firmly and deeply involved in the murky underworld of irrational Bush hatred—evidently Stone’s target audience.
And we know how he feels, so there is no need to keep telling us. He could just come up with some code: BIAWAIWAHHAEHEDAHIST
Bush Is Always Wrong And I Will Always Hate Him And Everything He Ever Did And He Is Stupid Too.
Just post your silly little code and stop wasting our time with your hate-based delusions. As it is, a mere glance at the author of the post does much the same thing—it’s not “I wonder what SAR has to say about this” but “I wonder how SAR will spin this into another anti-Bush hissy fit”.
And Zach is right—-neither Hillary nor Barack has any leadership qualities. They are both too much in the cherished Lib pattern of groveling for popularlity to be able to lead. Leaders have to do what is right and not worry about the polls. Libs not only don’t understand that, they revile it—just look at the constant whining about what percentage of Americans don’t like Bush.
One of Bill Clinton’s great flaws was that instead of leading the country he was following the popularity polls.
14. Diane Tomlinson | April 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Okay K4V I think I understand something fundamental about the political dynamics of American politics since 1979. There are pockets where people like you and your mostly conservative white Christian family live that are the dominant flavor of the week so to speak. You are separate from the other flavors whether they be of a more moderate conservatism, moderate liberalism or truly left wing liberalism. However, through the power of the Mass Media you and those who you trust to think for you and tell you what is right and wrong [talk radio hosts and pastors] are exposed to differing opinions. Your church and media leaders teach you about the saving of the unborn yet you care little about the Living poor. Those you follow teach you about class warfare while enjoying a level of wealth that you will never attain [I exclude Noonan from this because he does work for a living]. The Parade of Pastors and Pundits teach family values and have few themselves.
So I ask you K4V where is the Liberal Ted Haggard? [You really want to compare reverend Wright to Haggard go ahead I'm off the rest of this afternoon] Where is the Liberal drug addicted voice of the left wing talk radio punditsphere? [Randi Rhodes rant Janeane Garofalo on Fox?] Where is the pedophile congressman who was force to resign from the Democratic party in 2006? [Yeah I know Barney Frank and Gerry Studds blah blah but no laws were broken other than the ones of common decorum, thou shalt not crap where ye eat]
Where is the Left Wing’s Jack Abramoff-Indian Gaming-Golf Trips and Hookers extravaganza? Why aren’t dozens of Democratic Party members of congress deciding not to run for “family reasons?” [Jefferson and some canned fish allegations? How far did Noonan have to go back to find all this Democratic corruption Teapot Dome? Darn, sorry he was a republican too wasn't he? Tammany Hall ring any bells?]
And to assure that this post is on topic how can you sit there and tell me that George W Bush was anything other than an alcoholic cocaine snorting bum who happened to be the scion of wealthy family when he has admitted to as much himself?
The problem of the Religious Right/ Neoconservatives/Republican Party isn’t that their ideas are bad for America. I actually think good fiscal policy is a step in the right direction and I think all terrorists should be rounded up and shot, including the American ones that wear three piece suits and work for companies that take advantage of home buyers, so I’m not as “lefty” as say Phil Mickelson. The problem with the right hand of the single body that is the American political party is that you guys are obsessed with Divinity.
Perfection on Terra is impossible, in Man or in Kind. Even Creation has its flaws. Maybe if politicians on the right let a hair out of place, hung up the halo, and stepped off the curb into the gutter from time to time with the rest of the Humans running men for the House like George “Dubya” Bush, who was flawed yet good at heart from the days when he was Texas governor you might have a chance in November. At this pace you’d honestly win more states in the Electoral College if you ran Doctor James Dobson with Paula White as Veep. John McCain? Please think church going women like pulling a voting lever for a man that would call his wife a name that rhymes with RUNT?
Stone can’t get anywhere near the Truth on the Bush White House experience because that experience, “because 9/11 changed everything” and “because the e-mails were inadvertently destroyed” can honestly be fabricated ex nihilo for there’s no alternate proof to argue a counterpoint.
One thing is for sure it will be some fertile blog fodder!
15. Some Assembly Required | April 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Alm,
No Mortgage crisis? Whether people were irresponsible into signing on for more then they could afford is besides the point. It is the banks and credit bureaus job to ensure people can’t for the exact reason of what is happening now.
“But the pressure is on for lawmakers to act swiftly to prevent a substantial number of foreclosures. Nationwide, 1.5 million subprime adjustable-rate mortgages will reset to higher interest rates this year, putting many of those homeowners at risk of falling behind on their payments and losing their homes.”
http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/07/news/economy/house_response_Sentatehousing/index.htm?cnn=yes
“there is no “break down in the constitution”, the “inherent corruption” he refers to exists mostly in that afore-mentioned feverswamp”
Constitution: See Patriot Act and FISA
Corruption: Scooter Libby? Don Siegelmen?
“the New Orleans fiasco has been firmly and permanently determined to be the fault of incompetent Louisiana (Democrat) officials”
What about Brownyyyy Head of FEMA, Bush appointee?
“whatever White House e-mails may or may not be “missing” is of very little import ”
Your absolutely right. They are only kept to provide an ACCURATE record of history. It’s not really important that they were deleted. It was probably just a syntax error that wiped the hard drives.
I think it is You that have BDS… (Bush Denial Syndrome)
16. Diane Tomlinson | April 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Almiranta you must have been one of those poor unfortunate souls that was unemployed during Pax Americana. What were you living in your car for the entire Clinton presidency? Yep the dotcom bubble burst and the recession was passed on to Bush and his economic team handled that one pretty well just as Clinton did with the CHW Bush recession. [was that a recession in real terms or just a little wave of uncertainty in the markets?]
For all you wingers who know nothing about economics the President has nothing to do with Recessions because they are driven by market forces which the president can influence only in some very minor ways with the exception of directed fiscal policy like the stimulus package.
17. Almiranta | April 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Diane, your rant answers many of its own questions.
But this caught my eye: “Where is the pedophile congressman who was force to resign from the Democratic party in 2006? [Yeah I know Barney Frank and Gerry Studds blah blah but no laws were broken other than the ones of common decorum, thou shalt not crap where ye eat] ..”
Uh, Diane, it might help if you could tell us just WHO was “…force (sic) to resign from the Democratic party in 2006…”? I’m confused on that.
Given the rest of your post, I can speculate that you are really trying to talk about a Republican, but even so I don’t know of any who were “forced” to “resign from the party”. I know of one who resigned from the House of Representatives, probably under pressure, though as much from the pressure of knowing his party didn’t like men who write dirty letters to pages.
But you seem to have missed a big point or two. The two “sex scandals” of the GOP in the past couple of years have not involved any actual physical contact. They are Thought Crimes. In one, the thought was pretty clearly spelled out, in e-mails to an adult who intitiated the correspondence—and not out of lust or attraction, but to try to entrap the Congressman into saying embarrassing things that could be used against him.
But again—with an adult, and with no physical contact. So we come back to your claim of pedophilia. Or is this another Lefty ploy of simply redefining terms to fit the accusation at hand?
The second was not only a Thought Crime, but the ALLEGATION of a Criminal Thought. For an action that is not illegal, in and of itself. For an action that is held up by many as not only perfectly acceptable but superior to the “breeder” version of sexual congress.
Gerry Studds did not get arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced merely for, as you so elegantly put it, choosing to crap where he ate. No, Studds actually DID engage in actual sexual activities which were actually illegal, being with a minor and all. Not pedophilia, as the young man/men in question were post-pubescent, but definitely illegal.
This one reference of yours is proof that you are so pretzeled into knee-jerk condemnation of all that is conservative that you either don’t know or don’t care about the differences between being accused of thinking of doing something the Left really thinks is cool, and actually committing an illegal act.
You appear to go further in your ridiculous comparison, and deny the criminality of Studds’ ACTIONS while sneering and snickering at the thoughts and alleged thoughts of people who committed no action at all.
In other words, you earned your red star for the day.
And then there is this gem, again so illustrative of the goofiness of what passes for thought on the radical Left: “…I think all terrorists should be rounded up and shot, including the American ones that wear three piece suits and work for companies that take advantage of home buyers,…”
So you are in favor of shooting people who say to other people, “You can’t afford the real, regular, payments on this house, but I can get you into a plan where the payments are so low you CAN afford them, for two years—feel like gambling that you will suddenly, miraculously, start to earn much more money than you ever have? You can always walk away in a couple of years if you DON’T win the lottery or suddenly start being paid twice what you have ever earned.”
Whatever you do, DON’T be critical of the idiots who decided to gamble on whatever they hoped might happen in the next two years. DON’T attach any personal responsibility to those who make really stupid and irresponsible decisions.
Sure, the people who took advantage of such stupidity were very bad people. And they deserve to go broke, now that the dreamers are defaulting on those mortgages. And you know what? There is the very real possiblity that the defaulters thought they were taking advantage of the lenders, knowing full well that they would never be able to make those payments once the initial rate expired.
Rounding up and shooting? Gee, maybe you’re onto something. While you’re at it, why not go after people who willingly enter into debts they know they cannot not pay? That would sure solve a lot of fiscal problems in this country, though on the other hand it would sure knock a hole in the Dem base.
But I guess it depends on whether or not you have enough bullets left after taking care of all those Thought Criminals. Shootin’s too damned good for those who think about the ‘wrong’ things—and of course those who are determined by a Tribunal of the Just to have thought those things even if they deny it.
And you know, I have a feeling you would consider yourself a fitting member of that tribunal. After all, that’s what radical Leftism is all about—elites making decisions about other people. It starts with deciding who deserves to earn how much, who deserves to keep how much of what he has earned, who deserves to do this or that, who needs “the playing field leveled”, and finally who deserves to be punished either for what he is thinking or is accused of thinking.
Pardon me for preferring a system in which these self-styled judgmental elites have no power beyond that of the ability to type their delusions and send them to internet sites.
18. Diane Tomlinson | April 8th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
You mean I would get to pick who we shoot? Really? Don’t get me all hot and bothered and then tell me there’s some appeals court waiting in the wings.
I and center left filks like myself are the last who would tell anyone what they can and cannot do because if it breaks no lwas and causes no harm to those deemed as minors under the Law I have no beef with it.
Now look at all the things the right wants to “control.”
Who you can marry.
What can be done with frozen embryos that could lead to amazing medical breakthroughs that will otherwise be thawed and dredged in acid.
Which religion gains preference over all others. Take a guess here.
What a woman can do with a collection of cells growing in her womb.
What you can or cannot injest or even possess in the realm of drugs in your own home.
What you can and cannot see on the tee vee.
Do I need to keep going? I don’t recall Progressives or Liberals advocating anything against already existing rights only things that the religious find offensive. Well you know what you are just gonna have to learn to look the other way.
19. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Holy crap Almiranta!
But you seem to have missed a big point or two. The two “sex scandals” of the GOP in the past couple of years have not involved any actual physical contact. They are Thought Crimes. In one, the thought was pretty clearly spelled out, in e-mails to an adult who intitiated the correspondence—and not out of lust or attraction, but to try to entrap the Congressman into saying embarrassing things that could be used against him.
Did that hurt doing all that twisting and turning???
20. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
‘The Path to 911′ was a factually challenged mini-series but it was praised here as truth. Another double standard.
Haven’t seen ‘W’ so i won’t comment on it yet. If you want to poo all over it when the final script isn’t even approved then go ahead.
21. Some Assembly Required | April 8th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I did not see ‘The Path to 911′ but I have watched the documentary ‘Truth and Lies of 9/11′. This documentary was very well done IMO. The presentation provided facts in the same manor of presenting a case to a jury. If memory serves I believe Micheal Moore may have even used the James Bath material in F9/11 as well.
22. Diane Tomlinson | April 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Almiranta now I am confused which two scandals are you talking about I was asking for if there were any Demiocratic party scandals equal to Ted Haggard [who had sex with Mike Jones] And Mark Foley [who did send suggestive emails to minor pages].
Can anyone here imagine having a conversation with an AUSA that thinks Party first over country? Uber alles? Oh wait that’s right David Atchison comes to mind a Republican pedophile, career DOJ employess who committed suicide once he was trapped.
How do you like them apples!
23. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“The two “sex scandals” of the GOP in the past couple of years have not involved any actual physical contact.”
Ranty,
Please take a look at this site and comment if you are able….
Care to adjust your numbers? Or shall we tag the site ‘liberal lies’? I like the tag ‘Republican Blinders’. What say you?
24. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
25. Tractatus | April 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Did that hurt doing all that twisting and turning???
Hey, she’s figured out ways to blame the Catholic Church’s little touchy-feely priest problem on liberals, to still call the Swift Boat liars “truth-tellers,” and to claim that all her own worst traits are actually what the damn dirty liberals do, among a great number of other “2+2=5″ claims. I’d say that “ridiculously contorted” describes her natural state.
26. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
27. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Here!
28. Yolan | April 8th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Weird!
29. Mortimer | April 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Oliver Stone is full of it, but he makes great movies sometimes. His movie would be a great counterbalance to your retarded juvenile theo-con worship of Bush.
30. FmrMarine | April 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
sar
>>>History will look back at how the economy tanked, the credit crunch and mortgage crisis<<
Seems the donks were in control of BOTH houses when this ocured.
but of course you nuts with BDS cant see that everything is W’s fault….PATHETIC!
31. FmrMarine | April 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
co
>>>..and like GWB, receive a failing grade.<<<
Yeah tell us all about it from your little marxist- frog
bi everything - utopia,Kanada.
and your little hate crime tribunals.
You are pathetic!
32. FmrMarine | April 8th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
sar;
>>>Whether people were irresponsible into signing on for more then they could afford is besides the point.<<<
WTF??????????
It is the ONLY point.
spoken like a true liberal marxist.
as DR Savage liberalism IS a mental disease.
33. Nate | April 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
“And history will look back favorably on Bush’s presidency, no matter how much Hollywood and the Democratic Party tries to distort it.”
that’s a matter of opinion, and it’s likely that few, if any, of us will be around long enough for an independent historical judgment of w’s terms in office.
34. FmrMarine | April 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
n
>>>that’s a matter of opinion, and it’s likely that few, if any, of us will be around long enough for an independent historical judgment of w’s terms in office.<<<
How is that?
We are are all witness to the absolute worst president of all time jimmah cartah.
and the second, the IMPEACHED b!@w j@b bill and his flying monkey show.
35. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
You guys are taking this way too seriously. This film isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion so let’s have some fun with it. Think of the casting.
Anthony Hopkins as Dick Cheney.
Jessica Simpson and Brittany Spears as the Bush Twins.
Halle Berry as Condi Rice.
Bruce Willis as Bush.
I’m sure some of you have some great ideas.
36. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
How about Fred Thompson as Rumsfield?
37. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Or Brando for Ed Kennedy. I know he’s dead, but who would notice?
38. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Morgan Feeman as Colin Powell?
Rob Schneider as Brownie?
39. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I like Morgan Freeman as Powell and Rob Schneider sounds good as Brownie. Who would play George H. W. Bush and Mrs. Bush?
40. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
George H. W. Bush and Mrs. Bush
Obviously the parents from “Everybody Loves Raymond”.
Although I think Peter Boyle has passed away.
:)
41. kimberly4victory | April 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Now, I’m all for having fun, but we’ve had so many movies filled with falsehoods about President Bush, we’re tired of it.
I wonder if you liberals would have this much fun casting a movie filled with gossip and rumors about a Democrat President. Doubt it.
42. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
“Obviously the parents from “Everybody Loves Raymond”.”
You got it.
43. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
kimberly4victory,
Ok, you pick the actors to play Bill and Hillary.
What do you have against Bruce Willis playing Bush?
44. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
k4v, yes we would have fun with it if it was a Dem Pres.
A couple of things…
1) I have to hope a Dem president wouldn’t have so many questionable acts to make the movie about!
2) You will bring up Clinton. I think there was a movie that wasn’t about Clinton, but had a character that was really a characature of Clinton. I don’t remember the name of it, but Travolta played the Pres. he was a womanizer and loved his donuts.
3) We would have fun with it because IT IS A MOVIE. This is the first I’ve heard of this “W” movie, but I don’t believe it is billed as a documentary. It is a movie. Did you see JFK? There was some facts to it, but there was also some non-fact aka exaggerations.
4) Don’t take this so seriously.
45. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Casper, I just want to heard Bush (Willis) on the phone with Sadaam and hear him say “Yippee kay-ay Mother F@#$@!!!!”
46. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
k4v, let me guess….. David Spade as Hillary?
Just kidding. See. It is ok to laugh at your own party.
47. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
“Casper, I just want to heard Bush (Willis) on the phone with Sadaam and hear him say “Yippee kay-ay Mother F@#$@!!!!””
LOL!!!
So who do we get to play Saddam?
48. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
“k4v, let me guess….. David Spade as Hillary?”
No too girly.
49. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The guy who plays Syed on Lost (Naveen Andrews) for Sadaam?
I’m trying to come up with someone for Alberto Gonzalez.
50. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“I’m trying to come up with someone for Alberto Gonzalez.”
How about Carlos Mencia?
k4v,
I hope you don’t think that all of our ideas are insults. personally, I would be honored to have Morgan Freeman play me, or Bruce Willis for that matter. I’m a big fan of both.
51. Joe | April 8th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
LOL. I had to look up who Carlos Mencia was, but now I know. he is a funny guy!
Have a good night everyone.
52. Casper | April 8th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Have a good night everyone.”
Same to you. Time to get back to my grading.
For everyone else. Lighten up. Life is too short.
53. Valeri Dubov | April 9th, 2008 at 4:58 am
The Clinton movie was Primary Colors and bill and hill were played by travolta and emma thompson.
and if you want to cast someone as Hillary in a modern movie dahling only hope davis will do
54. kimberly4victory | April 9th, 2008 at 10:23 am
It would be great if Stone’s movie was going to be a parody, something like Airplane, but he is going to promote it as truth. A movie filled with rumors and gossip is, IMO, not truthful. And, yes, Casper, the gullible will believe it, just as they believed the lies in Michael “I hope more of our troops come home in bodybags” Moore’s F-911 documentary.
55. Joe | April 9th, 2008 at 10:49 am
k4v,
I don’t think anyone is going to claim this to be 100% truth. But it will most certainly be BASED on truth.
Who knows… with all the screwups of this Administration it may be as funny as Airplane!
I picked a bad 7 years to stop sniffing glue.
56. kimberly4victory | April 9th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I think you meant to say, “the truth as liberals see it.”
57. Diane Tomlinson | April 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
How’s this for an idea postpone the filming until 2010 and let Stone and his screenwriters go through all the Executive branch non classified archival records from the administration with some forensic historians and data retrieval experts than THEN, make a factual movie.
58. Diane Tomlinson | April 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Gonzales=Benecio del Toro
Bush=Gary Sinise
Laura=Ann Archer
Rumsfeld= Robert Culp
Wolfowitz=Gary Oldman
Saddam Hussein=Terence Howard
Powell=Mark Curry
Cheney=Dame Judi Dench
Gore=Philip Seymour Hoffman
59. FmrMarine | April 9th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Can I play bubba klintoon?
I want to be the guy dipping yasser arafart’s cegar,
and geting - B!@W J@B$ while at work from an intern as young as my daughter!
and a dyke wife.
now there is a movie with a plot!
60. Accounting Financial Calc&hellip | July 8th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Accounting Financial Calculators Bad Credit Credit Cards
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me