ROTTEN TOMATOES: Oliver Stone's George Bush Pic W Has Its First Family Comments

Oliver Stone's George Bush Pic W Has Its First Family

by Jeff Giles | March 28, 2008

Summary

George W. Bush's early years will soon be coming to a theater near you, courtesy of Oliver Stone. Back to Article

(1-114 of 114 posts) | Reply

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:22 AM

Way to be objective RT.

(Reply to this)

Some guy you dont know writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:33 AM

Bush sucks and everyone knows that.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:44 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656847)
What exactly did you have a problem with, MrWhite?

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:45 AM

"It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance"

...and he's Oliver Stone so this won't happen.

"and by the time he leaves office, the rest of the country will probably be so tired of hearing about anything Bush-related that it's hard to imagine them paying for the privilege of watching his life unfold on the big screen. What's your take on this, RT faithful?"

Now there's the damned truth... I'm esspecially unexcited to have Oliver Stone try and shock me by distorting fact that where already bad enough on their own, thus adding fuel to fire, furthur polorizing the political factions in this country while accomplishing nothing.

I really wish Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Brian DePalma and the like would stop trying to help. Filmmakers like them are the only reason anyone actually still supports Bush because they make anyone who doesn't look like a nut job.

They're like the Jerry Falwell/Flip Benham/Fred Phelps of the left wing.

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:16 AM

I have a problem with the article making it seem as if Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive. If the movie and the article plan to be objective it has to show both sides, something that never happens in the liberal movie business. I just get annoyed sometimes and actually complaion, thats all.

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:20 AM

My main problem is with this comment "It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance." I feel that it is out of place. It is a judgment of Bush that has nothing to do with information about the movie.

(Reply to this)

whiskeyriver writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:25 AM

How bout we talk about the film, instead?

Josh Brolin as Bush is kind of a stretch. I'm interested in seeing if he can pull it off. And although I am a bigtime lefty liberal treehugger hippie (to use the right's lexicon), I too wish Stone and his ilk quit trying to "help." They do no good when they open their big yappers.

Anyways, this film should be interesting to say the least. Doubtful, though, that it will actually be...ya know...good.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656864)
My comments weren't a personal judgment of Bush's presidency -- they were a reflection of the very low approval ratings he's suffered throughout the bulk of his second term. I didn't say he has no supporters, I said there are a lot of people who want him out of office. Regardless of how you feel about him, I don't see how you can deny that.

(Reply to this)

Crenshaw writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:29 AM

Oh the flame-bait is jsut too easy....

" I have a problem with the article making it seem as if Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive."

Um...Bush has no supporters and he has done nothing positive.

Heehee! Ooo this is too easy!

(Reply to this)

MrWhite5252 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:38 AM

Bush has plenty of supporters and has done many things that are positive.... That was fun!

Sorry I said anything. I usually know better than to state my opinion since it will just be "flamed" and discussions will not occur.

whyskeyriver is right, just talk about the film. I think the film is too soon. It is hard to make longterm judgments about a presidency while it is still going on.

Jeff, you are right about the amount of supporters but you have to remember that at least 30% (not exact changes all the time) do still support him. That is still lots of people.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656879)
compulsion.. too.. great.. MUST.. take.. opportunity..

Things Bush has done right:

>NOT taking a hostage
>NOT giving spoilers to big-budget movies that he has seen that his staff has not
>NOT using the power of the presidency to get a cameo as 'HyperAwesomeLazerFirebetterthanSuperman Boy' in the new JLA movie
*so far
>NOT referring to Cheney as 'Chubby McSkeletor'

...other than that, I'm tapped out. Nothin' else comes to mind.

BUT I digress--

After 'No Country,' I say let Brolin roll with this. I'd be fascinated to see his take. I also like Elizabeth Banks, so this could be interesting.

I share everyone's concern about Stone's 'Objectivity' but my concern actually swings the other way- I'd be worried that he would water down some of retarded monkey-child's younger gaffes in order to heighten drama and make him a more sympathetic character.

Over-all, I'd say this would be better to release about three or four years down the line. Maybe as an HBO special event.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656870)
And a well earned low approval rating, Jeff. You ask me, Stone should do a movie about that incredible 30 or percent that still support him. Now THAT would be an interesting high concept. Call it "How?!", and make it satire. I'll probably even pay to see it. But this movie? Smells like another Natural Born Killers to me. I'll wait for it to come on HBO. Sorry, Stone.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#1656870)
"30 or so", I meant to say. Man, I wish you guys had an edit feature.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:51 AM

The kids love him. His guest appearance on Nick Jr.'s "Wonder Pets" as a hamster brought his 17% approval rating up to an even 30%.

He'll also be in "Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay," except this movie is so incredibly bad (and I liked the first) that it may hurt his shot at getting a few libraries named after him down the road.

For an honest, totally unbiased portrayal of Bush Jr., may I suggest the stridently independent, fair and balanced "Faith in the White House." My sarcasm will not register with anyone except for the six other people who've seen it.

(Reply to this)

jonboy83 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:24 AM

"It seems like Stone will have to bend over pretty far to make W complimentary enough to satisfy the small subset of Americans who have been satisfied with the younger Bush's job performance"

No one cares about your opinion. Keep it to the information in the story to the movie and let your ignorant readers bash Bush in the forums, which are easily ignored. I love RT, but I do not visit this site to read liberal propaganda.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:31 AM

Sweet, a political argument! Can I join?

As I said the other day, Elizabeth Banks will have to be removed from my masturbation rituals with this little gem of bad casting. Thanks, Mr. Stone.

And all Jeff said was the truth. His approval ratings are now at the lowest point he's had. Low approval ratings = small minority of supporters. End of argument.

But I still think this movie is a bad idea.

(Reply to this)

jts52 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:36 AM

Bush has done many positive things? The only positive thing this slug can do is slide back into the muck and disappear forever. What a joke of a president. He ruins everything he's touched. That's what you get America for voting in a "Good Ole Boy". Suckers.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657088)
Again, jonboy, looking at Bush's approval ratings over the last several years will make it clear that the number of people satisfied with his job performance are vastly outnumbered by those who are not. I guess math is liberal propaganda now?

There's a difference between pointing out an obvious fact and "bashing" the President. I sympathize with your frustration over the constant barrage of anti-Bush sentiment -- it's got to be annoying to be subjected to so much of something you disagree with -- but try to read what I actually wrote. Irrespective of my personal political views, I think Stone is giving himself a thankless job here.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:05 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657088)
>and let your ignorant readers bash Bush in the forums, which are easily ignored

..Jonboy83, how do you know we're ignorant if you're so easily ignoring us? Are we *automatically* ignorant, simply because we post, here?

Well, since you're clearly ignoring this, it won't hurt for me to sing a couple of choruses of my hit song 'retarded monkey-child douche-bag.'

Here goes:
'Bush is a retarded monkey-child douche-bag ouche-bag ouche-bag'
(Sung to the tune of Rihanna's 'Umbrella')

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:09 AM

Oh man, I wish I weren't at work so I could property address this thread. I love this stuff.
My Two Cents: Jeff, I agree with Mr White, the article came off incredibly one-sided. Why? Because the Headline is about the cast, not whether Mr. Bush has done a good or agreeable job being the President. Thus, there was no reason to mention his it, either way. And since you did, it comes off very one-sided. It may be truth, but either way it wasn't needed if you take what the article is about in mind.
Dang, boss is watching, I'm out.

(Reply to this)

Defshep writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:18 AM

The movie is a bad idea for several reasons. Firstly, Bush has been, and will go down in history as, one of the worst presidents ever. I didn't believe that was going to be the case when I supported his run in 2000. I won't waste time arguing over where he was good or bad, because that is just my opinion. It can't be a film celebrating the life of a brilliant man and leader, because even most conservatives wouldn't buy it. Not that Stone would ever make such a film. If it is an anti-Bush piece (probably), then it will be made from a liberal bias.

A truly objective film would be fascinating. Unfortunately, we know very little truth, since most of this presidency has been shrouded in secrecy and backroom deals. This administration has been so protected from any real responsibility. I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, as his China and NAFTA dealings were contributors to the downfall we are experiencing now. But I think a bj in the Oval Office (the Republicans were too afraid to really explore Whitewater and the Chinese connections to ol' Bill, so they found this?) is less damaging to the nation than going into a war based on lies.

In the end, it will be a boring, bland political documentary with no teeth.

Just an aside, didn't Josh's dad play Reagan in a movie?

(Reply to this)

Defshep writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:19 AM

And Cromwell is PERFECT as H.W.

(Reply to this)

Jeff Giles writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657154)
I see what you're saying, Merlin, but I disagree. An article's headline can't always be reflective of all its contents -- it's just a gateway to the story, and part of this story is the context surrounding the film, which includes the way people feel about its subject.

I understand how my comments could be construed as one-sided, but really, when it comes to stuff like this, people are going to see what they want to see. The only way to avoid it is to avoid the topic completely, which seems like an awfully childish solution.

(Reply to this)

Jen Yamato writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:58 AM

Brilliant image you found for the article, Jeff.

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Mar 28 2008 10:20 AM

I hear Brolin's been signing his name in crayon as a part of his research for this role.

(Reply to this)

danielfrohlich writes:
on Mar 28 2008 10:32 AM

Jeff is merely stating a fact, less than 1/3 of the country agrees with what he's doing right now. Facts can't be sided to liberal or conservative. I guess in this case, conservatives may find it hard to take with a little dignity.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 28 2008 11:26 AM

umm, is no one else excited about watching the "formative years" of dubyuh getting trashed at frat parties, being arrested for drunken disorderly conduct at football games, sniffing yay as duran duran's "white lines" blares in the background, sexually harassing chicks and making inane speeches at pep rallies while doped off a handful of pills he got from this guy named ricky from around the way?

dude, this is gonna be the sweetest party flick ever. it will make 'animal house' look like 'petting zoo manor.' the best part of the whole thing being that we know how this story ends: with our flawed hero rising to power through a series of failed business ventures and getting bailed out by his dad a lot to become the world's most powerful person and then lining the pockets of everyone he knows with the money and blood of the american people.

this WILL be the feel-good movie of the year. and ellen burstyn is amazing.

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:15 PM

This is a good cast even if the subject of the movie is rotten. I just can't imagine many people in this country -- or the world -- wanting to see this film unless it told the truth about the man and showed him for the monster that many believe him to be. A love-fest about the man will not generate much interest or money.

(Reply to this)

w@velength writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:16 PM

There was already a documentary about Bush on PBS's "Frontline", called "Bush's War", and it's all you've ever need or want to see to once and for all condemn that abortion of a man.

And Mr. White, the man is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, which immediately overrules any-- ANY-- positive things he might have done or ever done. (There is NO excuse for killing civilians.)

Also, he's a just plain a prick.

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:31 PM

look at all the sheep bah bah bah, making sweet beautiful sound in unisense. Lets all just repeat whatever the fabulous New York times tells us right? So that includes P Diddy killing Tupac and Mccain's affair with Iselman?

Bush's rating is low because he is a wartime president. War is unpopular, but then how about being able to say what ever you want on the internet? Everyone loves that idea right? Without realizing it takes lives to fight and die for it! Look at Tibet, look at what China is trying to do to it. Be thankful Americans have died and is dying now for that right.

Pleas please put the flowers away, there are countries and regeims forming alliance against us, against our way of life. Lets see the power of our 2 finger peace signs and the power of flowers in our hair stop the next 9/11???

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657475)
And Bush did such a good job preventing the first 9/11, eh? Could anyone do worst than that? I think not.

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:46 PM

I too saw the Frontline documentary about "Bush's War" and was equally horrified and dismayed by its content - of course I already knew much of what was explored, but to hear it all so thoroughly and concisely described was pretty disheartening. It's worth watching - I think you can see it on the PBS website.

As for whether it's too soon for a "W" movie, does anyone remember Mike Nichols' film "Primary Colors"? It was a thinly-veiled portrait of Bill Clinton during his first-term candidacy, dealing with the various sex scandals that hounded him. It came out in 1998 which was in the middle of Clinton's second term - he was still in office.

As I recall, that movie did pretty well at the box office, so it's likely that the Bush movie will also do well. I think people will still be intrigued to find out more about the motivations of a public figure who has been so divisive and affected the course of our country's history so dramatically.

(Reply to this)

Macedonian writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:46 PM

soo forget james cromwell.. i say dana carvey as george bush sr!!

(Reply to this)

diablo-wy writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:47 PM

First off: First post-

The Bush bashing is getting old. I am thankfull that President Bush is taking a strong stance and keeping a strong stance against terrorism. To say that this is a war based on oil or lies is just plain ignorant. How many more attempted attacks need to be averted before people realize we are winning this, it will just take a while. Wait, we never here about the averted attacks due to the liberal bias in the media and Hollywood's "objective" representation in all of their movies. Give me a break.

(Reply to this)

Weston B writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:52 PM

Also starring Javier Bardem as Sadaam Hussein, who is the sympathetic character fighting his inner demons as he gasses innocent Kurds.

(Reply to this)

kyleGR writes:
on Mar 28 2008 12:59 PM

If an aricle appeared, anywhere for that matter, and was 'pro-bush', in any light, then it would certainly be biased; to promote the negatives about the 8 years of Bush is to promote fact.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:11 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657465)
W@velength
um.......... do have any idea what Saddam Hussein did? and now... because of that "KILLER PRICK" Hussein no longer exists to put children in GAS CHAMBERS! to put it in perspective for you... Hussein is like Hitler and the Kurds were like Jews. it was a HOLOCAUST!!!!!
I have a childhood friend who is in Iraq right now. Guess what the terrorists did there?
they kidnapped a young boy, slashed off his penis, stuck a bomb in his body and dumped him (Still alive) in the city street.... when the boy's father ran through a hail of machinegun fire to rescue him... the terrorists let him pick up the boy, run with him back into his house... then detonated the bomb... killing the entire family....
so we're down there trying to save these people. my friend says that where he is the Iraqis treat the American soldiers like Heros for doing what they can to save them from terrorists. AND..... every American soldier that is in Iraq or has DIED THERE has SIGNED UP!!!! VOLUNTEERED!!!!! NO DRAFT!!!!!!!
so before you start making stupid comments that make all us liberals look ignorant.... look at the facts.
America turned a blind eye to Hitler%u2026 until pearl harbor%u2026 then we were like, %u201CNOW IT%u2019S OUR PROBLEM!%u201D
September 11th%u2026%u2026. Yeah%u2026%u2026.. I guess terrorist don%u2019t kill civilians do they?
And Hussein supported the 9/11 attacks.
But I will say this against the war%u2026.. what the **** is up with abu ghraib? Are we Nazis?
but seriously%u2026%u2026 i highly doubt bush was behind the whole scandal. (And any level headed person would agree with me.)
And GILES! WHAT THE %u2013 man%u2026%u2026 are you TRYING to start a fight?

Anyway%u2026 that%u2019s my two cents. Just my opinion. You don%u2019t have to take it.
I%u2019m off to work. See you later everybody.
Live long and prosper.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657475)
If you're going to pull in a random "anti-liberal" quote, at least get your facts straight. It was the LOS ANGELES TIMES that ran the Tupac/Diddy story.

2nd, only an ignorant person would say that the Iraq war has made us stronger. There was absolutely zero threat of terrorism from Iraq prior to the war. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. Now, Iraq is a breeding ground for anti-American extremists. Meanwhile, Al Quaeda has been allowed to grow inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This has all been well-documented. In order to be strong, you must know how to use your strength.

The only time that Bush bashing will be old is after the man is out of office. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't nearly enough of it going on. The man is a disgrace to our reputation in the world.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657485)
yeah we're "winning." just like we were gonna "win" vietnam. it's not a football game, it's an occupation. the point is that you cannot "win" in such a scenario, unless your idea of victory is forcing a specific way of life on people who really want nothing to do with it (while tens of thousands die and billions of dollars are spent in the process).

it's now time to put our tail between our legs and go home. ya know, home, the place that is no longer secure because all of our troops are overseas. then when an actual domestic threat occurs (see hurricane katrina) there's no one around to help. sorry, but the formerly "undefeated" USA has some big ole chinks in its body armor.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:24 PM

Jeff, come on man. No one is frying you for writing it with a bias, that's fine. But to deny it? For goodness sake, check out the picture you chose for the article. It's fine that you don't like the man, the text made that pretty clear.
I don't know whether to laugh or to be worried that so many people have no problem looking at President Bush as an 'abortion of a man.' If people can't tell the difference between what he is trying to do in the Middle East, and what China is doing now, or Saddam did before we removed him, or any other despotic government's actions, then I'd love to talk to you. To say what we are doing in Iraq, which is costing thousands of lives, is worse than what we did in the 90's(i.e. sanctions & sorties), which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, is an extremely odd thing to say and I'd love to know the reasoning behind it. And please, keep the rhetoric to a minimum. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's quite another to be so arrogantly positive about it that you'd condemn another human being because they view it differently.

(Reply to this)

bethehero7404 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:27 PM

What will be a higher score? The RT rating for it or the approval rating of DUBBYA?

You know when DUBBYA leaves office, I bet his approval rating shoots waaaaaay up!

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:30 PM

arendr - To call someone ignorant for not viewing things your way is probably not the best way to go. History gives us perspective, as there were plenty of people in 1862 that thought the Civil War was only making us a weaker nation. There were plenty of other people who thought, during the fierce fighting in WWII, that the US was making a mistake by going after Japan and Germany (especially at the same time!). Wartime predictions of what will, and what won't, make us safer are generally off kilter. You have a conflict, decide if it's worth fighting, and get engaged or don't. But once it's on, and everyone's thrown down, it's best to see it through. In my opinion. Because history judges things differently than our small perspective can.
P.S. dahluzz, are you aware of how many people died after we left Vietnam? Surrendering and leaving doesn't necessarily solve anything.

(Reply to this)

zeldy345 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:35 PM

The film is going to be about his "formative" years...so it will be objective...it'll probably have very little to do w/ his presidency...but I think its clear that it will portray a spoiled brat, nothing against Bush personally (money=brats/hippies or neocons), that was possibly pushed into a political life he necessarily didnt want..would anyone really vote for a president cheney or rumsfeld? No! Bush is the "friendly" face (a voteable face (ignoring my personal politics)) of the neoconservatives...Stone is the go to guy for political biopics anyway...it'll be a well made film, but nobody will go see it...

(Reply to this)

Defshep writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657571)
I think you have right. Bush is the "everyman", of sorts. See? If a C student former cokehead can be president, why not me? I think he would rather be doing anything else than pretending to run the free world. He was pushed by men (H.W, Cheney, etc.) who know how to manipulate the masses. I've often considered him the "Manchurian Candidate", as he is a mere puppet.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Mar 28 2008 01:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657563)
leaving is the lesser of two evils, the greater being to stay there indeffinately, remaining at war while our own county isn't doing so hot. are we making the connection between the county being at war for 5 years now (4,000 american soldiers dead and countless iraqis) and our economy being in the toilet while the rest of world shakes its head in shame?

we've given iraq, a country that really had nothing to do with 9/11, enough of our soldiers, money and time. sadaam's out, now it's time to let iraq run itself as best it can. we shouldn't have gone in there, and now that things have gone completely south, the most viable solution is to say 'hey we tried to instill democracy, while our administration ignored every possible strategy for the operation to run smoothly, and now it's time to go.'

the world doesn't need policing. but do see 'no end in sight' if you're curious about exactly how every plan was disregarded. the why is simple: when the country's at war, it's easy to make a whole lot of money disappear.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:07 PM

dahluzz - I don't know anyone who is advocating staying in Iraq 'indeffinately'. But you're right, we are spending a whole lot of money over there. A lot of money. But to chalk up the economy not doing well because of the war, when we spend so much money on other things is a little bit of a stretch. But people argue about economic issues all the time, no one being 100% correct all the time. Our economy is an incredibly complicated machine. It is interesting that the 'rest of the world shakes its head in shame', since I'm sure by that you mean Europe. The same Europe we helped liberate 60 years ago. An action we're now repeating in Iraq. An interesting parallel to put it mildly.
I do agree with you, that at some point we'll have to hand things over to Iraq. But we're seeing some success with the Surge, and I think it'd be a little premature to pull things out now.
I would also caution people to be slow to blame anyone running the war for mistakes made. Mistakes are always made in wars. Running a war has to be about the hardest job on the planet. It's pretty arrogant to sit on the sidelines and blame people for mistakes while we sit here and drink our beers and eat our burgers.
The world doesn't need policing, you're right. But in some cases, the world is very slow to react. Iraq is one that I think we should have acted on sooner. Somalia, Sudan, other areas are also places the 'world' should act, but would rather not. Is it not hard for you to post on a movie website, while realizing that your brothers and sisters in the world are suffering so much? I think it's hard for the western world to realize how ruthless government can be when given too much power. Saddam would have men's wives raped in front of them, and then would put them through meat grinders. Feet first, so they could feel everything and die slowly. How do you not confront such evil?

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657563)
Merlin, my old friend. There is a point where the term ignorant can be used. Perhaps I should have merely called the statement in question "Ignorant" instead of the person. That was a mistake.

You are correct that history gives us perspective. And I can use history to prove my side of the argument as well. World War II was a war that we did not start. It was a situation in which we sat on the side for many years until we decided we could no longer watch. Vietnam was an example of us sticking our noses into a place in which we didn't belong. It is true that people suffered after we left, but how much suffering did our involvement cause? That was not our place, and neither is Iraq.

We went into Iraq without the support of many great allies. We were told that Hussein was a DIRECT THREAT to our national security and that he had weapons of mass destruction. Once we got to Iraq and every reasoning they used to get us there was disproved, the administration changed the reasoning for the war. Now they tell us it's because we need to fight them there rather than here and that we were going to liberate the Iraqi people. How noble of us to use another people's country as a battlefield so that their innocents are caught in the middle.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:15 PM

The thing I hope to come of this movie is an objective portrayal of my personal beef with this man, beyond disagreeing with just about every command decision he's ever made--

I want this to be an expose' on mediocrity. I want this movie to be about how a man who was never destined for greatness and has nowhere near the capacity, intellect or temperament to handle the responsibilities handed to him, was able to rise up as if in some twisted nightmare of Darwinian evolution. THAT is the good I think this movie could do, if it exposes just a little bit of the reality that Once Upon a Time in America, Money & Power absolutely, unequivocally and without reproach, won.

And to counter the inevitable argument about how power has ALWAYS greased the way-- NEVER in United States history, including Grant's presidency (heretofore considered the most rife with corruption), was such a mediocre, simple man so blatantly and arrogantly installed in this office when the stakes were this high and the capacity to vet was so formidable.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:28 PM

arendr - WWII and Vietnam were in fact very different from this conflict, I'll give you that. Any direct comparison will be difficult to sustain, whether it be pro or con. The wars were started for very different reasons as well. The WMD issue was a major mistake, I can't argue that. I wouldn't argue it. However, it's a result of the Carter admin changing how intel is collected in the field. Back in the day, we stopped supporting counter-insurgency efforts with our people on the ground, and changed to relying on more technological aspects of espionage. That, and paying others for intel. If nothing else, the current war should point out the limits of such techniques. But there were other reasons for going to war, and if you review the President's speeches before the conflict started he lists them. There is a speech he gave in Cincinnati that would outline that well.
I honestly can't say that knowing what I do now, I would support the war again. But I don't honestly know I wouldn't, either. How do you weigh the lives of the thousands lost during conflict with the lives of thousands who died during 'peacetime'? Who was it that said, "Peace is not just the absence of war, but the presence of Justice"? We profited from Saddam's oil, while simultaneously leaving the Iraqi people out to dry. There is no good answer here. If President Bush is so hated for doing something about it, why isn't President Clinton not hated for doing nothing?

(Reply to this)

Darth Hungus writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:33 PM

Politicians suck balls.

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:33 PM

I think Tera Patrick should play Laura Bush.

(Reply to this)

Hamboner writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:40 PM

Oliver Stone makes my crotch itch. I can't like any character he writes. I don't know why.

(Reply to this)

jonboy83 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657105)
Jeff, you'll have to excuse my calling it liberal propaganda, however, there are plenty of people out there, like myself, who support President Bush without necessary agreeing with everything he's ever done. I think the polls don't correctly convey that. My main point was I certainly don't come to a movie website for political commentary, but perhaps I overreacted.

(Reply to this)

jonboy83 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:50 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657105)
Jeff, you'll have to excuse my calling it liberal propaganda, however, there are plenty of people out there, like myself, who support President Bush without necessary agreeing with everything he's ever done. I think the polls don't correctly convey that. My main point was I certainly don't come to a movie website for political commentary, but perhaps I overreacted.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657666)
It's nice to have an argument with an intelligent person who speaks before he thinks.

I was no fan of Clinton's Iraq policy myself. The duplicitous relationship with Saddam Hussein began in the 80s with Reagan's administration, in a similar as our relationship with Bin Laden. Coincidentally, both men turned on us. The problem is that Bin Laden is the one who proved to be a real danger to the safety of our people both here and abroad.

I'm not sure that justice is plunging Iraq into even deadlier violence than existed in the country prior to the invasion. It is true that what we did was tear the band-aids off of an already simmering conflict, but at the same time we have stoked the fires of anti-Americanism in the country.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Mar 28 2008 02:55 PM

Oliver Stone is a mediocre director who is ridiculously overrated and has an incredibly inflated ego and sense of self-worth. I think the truth is, we would all be better if if Oliver Stone never decided to get into film.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 03:46 PM

I love liberals, they have no understanding of the real world. Tens of thousands dead because of bush? Is that why only 4000 iraqs are dead? Facts and liberals do not mix.

(Reply to this)

CallMeBakes writes:
on Mar 28 2008 03:51 PM

Well, let me just say that I'm a Bush supporter, and I know plenty of other people who are as well. That doesn't mean I have agreed with everything he's done (especially considering immigration policy among other things), but he's all right in my book.
But getting to the movie itself I ask myself, why a biopic of Bush? Of all the Presidents you could do, why one that is still in office when filming begins? If Bush is so "obviously" a bad president, why do the likes of Stone or Michael Moore insist on cramming their version of history down the country's throats? History will be the ultimate deciding factor on the issues surrounding his presidency. It someone has to rush to attempt and discredit someone so soon out of office, then maybe, deep down, they know his legacy will actually be an honored one.
But such is liberal Hollywood.

(Reply to this)

horrid_haight writes:
on Mar 28 2008 04:38 PM

There's a difference between a director that does relevant films because he wants to confront a current issue or story. And then there's a director who pounces on something current because he wants to appear 'cutting-edge' or daring. Oliver Stone is the latter. He does these things because he feels he has a reputation as a director who'll go where others won't, not because he wants to really do something great.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 04:44 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657735)
Uhh...it's not 4000 dead Iraqis. It's 4000 dead American troops. The number of dead Iraqis is closer to 80-90,000.

(Reply to this)

brentknudson311 writes:
on Mar 28 2008 04:46 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657465)
So Bush is solely responsible for the thousands of deaths? Give me a break. The war in Iraq is a conflict so much more complicated than all you rabid bush haters want to acknowledge. You realize that congress is to be held equally responsible for authorizing the war. As is the American public for thirsting for revenge after the attacks of 9/11. How about Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton? And what about Saddam Hussein? What about the world's utter dependence on Oil? What about 19th century European colonialism? What about WWI and WWII? What about the cold war? All these preconditions have helped pave the way for the war we are in right now. I know it's much easier to simplify a situation like this to fit your biased opinions, but it just shows your lack of understanding, immaturity and ignorance.

(Reply to this)

JettaJameson writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:04 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657088)
Oh god. Hahaha. Too easy to tear that one apart. So I won't.

I have 0 desire to see this movie. Who would pay to watch a movie about the worst president in U.S. History? Certainly not I. I wouldn't even rent it. In fact, I'm already over it!

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Mar 28 2008 05:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657992)
"You realize that congress is to be held equally responsible for authorizing the war. As is the American public for thirsting for revenge after the attacks of 9/11. How about Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Bill Clinton? And what about Saddam Hussein? What about the world's utter dependence on Oil? What about 19th century European colonialism? What about WWI and WWII? What about the cold war? All these preconditions have helped pave the way for the war we are in right now."

All true. But guess what? Bush pulled the trigger. He didn't have to send our troops there, you know.

(Reply to this)

The_Duckling writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657475)
nogard46, you seriously did not just type that. Please get your head out of your *** and look around. Bush isn't unpopular because he's a wartime president. In fact, war usually strengthens nationalism. It's because he's an incompetent douche-bag who has less brains then half of a pretzel nugget. We should never have gone into Iraq, at least the way Bush did it. By the way, just because I live near San Francisco doesn't mean that I'm a way left pot smoker hippie dude. I'm a moderate liberal who tries to see things from other people's perspectives. But I just can't see it from yours. Please don't vote again. Ever. Please. Don't. Or I will kill you. I'm serious. You WILL die.

(Reply to this)

The_Duckling writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657510)
and vaodsi... I hear what you're saying. But we really shouldn't have gone into Iraq the way we did. especially not when we have Osama in our crosshairs. I totally support the troops but I don't support the war. And I don't think that it's the LIBERALS who need to try to look level-headed.

(Reply to this)

The_Duckling writes:
on Mar 28 2008 06:30 PM

Just had an enraged outbreak...stepping back across the line...please don't kill me merlin...

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on Mar 28 2008 07:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657992)
i agree with ur first few points, but not ur last few points. if the world wars and cold war led to the current iraq war, then it would be much more global and chaotic then it already is now would it? of course saddam and the previous presidents would lead into the war mentality used today, but the previous world wars and the cold war would be going a bit too far.

(Reply to this)

DarthWonka writes:
on Mar 28 2008 08:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657992)
As much as I hate to agree, you've got an excellent point. Blaming a nation's problems on a single person is just stupid. All things are so much more complicated than that.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Mar 28 2008 09:50 PM

Stone is clearly a director with an agenda (and it ain't objectivity). He will probably be hailed by the left and (more) hated by the right for this film.

I don't know about all of the people in this film but Cromwell and Brolin seem like odd choices to me. I like both actors and their films, but Cromwell is basically a socialist and Brolin's stepmom is Barbara Streisand. Unless Stone pulls the reins in tight, the choice of casting these actors will cast suspicion over any possible objectivity this film could have.

Stone should do a film - like Godfather 2 - that follows the lives of two men: a young Bill Clinton and a young George Bush. I would love to see the contrast and comparisons. Two polarizing presidents in their youth.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 29 2008 01:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657105)
I think Jeff, He was arguing with the way you phrased the article 30%-40% isn't really a "small subset" of the American people. If you take that tact which is ~120million people. Then you'd have to make statements like "a small subset of the American people watch the Super Bowl." or "A small subset of the American people actually vote in their elections." While that may not have been what you meant by it, it does leave itself open to misinterpretation and smacks a bit too much of Fox newsien tactics for me.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 29 2008 02:07 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657465)
OK my friend I couldn't let this comment pass. The man wheterh you support him or not is President of the United States and your European logic here is extremely faulty. By your logic then George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Robert E Lee, Winston Churchill, FDR heck even Nelson Mandela and thousands of other world leaders never did anything positive during their lives. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but this is my biggest fear about the aforementioned film. That it'll be an empty hatchet job which misconstrue's the facts and presents a wholly biased opinion and reiterates things we already know because obviously we're too stupid to notice things until Hollywood makes us aware by repeating what they read in a newspaper as if it were their own opinion, thus making it pointless. Hate the man please if that's what you want, just don't let your hatred make you ignorant. That's all I'm saying.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 29 2008 02:19 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657529)
Actually that's not entirely true. Zarqawi was actually already in Iraq prior to the war and had a lab in a place called Kurma, Iraq (See the link below) where they were in the early stages of making Ricin and Botulinum Toxin (The article actually blames Bush for not killing him earlier ala the whole Clinton should have killed Bin Laden debate) and there IS still a serious NATO Effort in Afghanistan as well. Fair point on the Pakistan issue, but how do we do anything about that without invading another nation?

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 29 2008 02:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657529)
Sorry forgot the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Mar 29 2008 02:21 AM

This is a bit like playing chess with all the pieces welded down, isn't it.

(Reply to this)

Pleasuretown writes:
on Mar 29 2008 05:29 AM

I don't like Oliver Stone.
I really don't.
Depending on the trailer and reviews.
I may see it.
But most of us know how this is going to turn out, so i probably wont waste my time.

(Reply to this)

Don't Tase Me Bro writes:
on Mar 29 2008 05:35 AM

I wonder if Oliver Stone will show how Dubya has, since 2001, quadrupled foreign aid to Africa ($5.2 billion now) to fight AIDS, and vaccinations for over 1.3 million men, women and children anti-retroviral (ARV) also in that time. (Before 2001, estimates were that the US contributed vaccinations for only 50,000 people annually.)

Naw...

He'll probably focus on his wild Yale coke-binges, his campus keggers, his DUI's, his glee at being in office just in time for 9-11, and, what the hell...throw in a wild theory about a secret love affair with Saddam gone awry...ending in his country's demise and Saddam's ignominious lynchin'.

Yeah...typical Stone-fare. I see this being as popular as 'Lions for Lambs'!

(Reply to this)

SpikesInMySkull writes:
on Mar 29 2008 08:30 AM

Jeff, let me just step in an say that right or wrong, in the age of internet anonimity it's awesome to see someone like you who will step in and actively defend his work... even the time or two you've defended it from me. Noone does that anymore.

Also: the essential quality of freedom of the press is not that it be unbiased, but that it be free.

Also, the can of worms has been opened, editing the article now is going to shut these people up.

(Reply to this)

StonetheCrow writes:
on Mar 29 2008 08:56 AM

Blast George W. Bush in the head with a shotgun for real. Put on a laugh. THEN make a movie out of THAT.
The crowd will be pleased.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 29 2008 12:47 PM

In reply to this comment (#1658882)
Yes my friend, but what people also forget is the little bit where the freedoms we are granted come with implied responsibilities. Something the modern press often times seems to forget. Hence why we have libel laws. In no way mean to imply that what Jeff has said should be considered libel, just making a point about Freedom of the Press...and arguing for arguments sake :)

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Mar 29 2008 01:47 PM

7 years and no major terrorist attacks on US soil. Following 9/11 that would have been considered a titanic accomplishment, and the primary goal of any president--dwarfing all other concerns. Now it counts for nothing. Except to people who aren't brainless fools.

(Reply to this)

optic_85 writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:14 PM

If a brief casting announcement on a movie website sparks an argument. Imagine all the fun controversy the movie will stir up. I just hope Brolin is up to the task of portraying a truly sick twisted man(or is he something else?)....

...Sorry, I couldn't help myself :D

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#1659473)
Haven't you been paying attention? He isn't a sick twisted man, he is an amazing man with a benevolent soul who only wants to do good. He has only improved this country's now booming economy (the rest of the world is a bunch of liberal biased liars, anything that even slightly contests this notion is liberal propaganda fueled by an evil liberal media controlled by Darth Vader himself) and soldiered on in a war that we have been winning since 2003, I mean the now free Iraqi people helped us topple Saddam's statue, get real we are winning and they love us. The 4000 dead is a liberal exaggeration of facts, the number is actually closer to 400! Get your facts straight.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:22 PM

One of the major problem Bush has (politicians, in general, I guess) is that he never takes the wite for his actions. Sure, he's not the sole decision maker (though he is the paramount one), but true leaders IMO know how to deflect praise and admit mistakes; politicians, however, could prevaricate w/ God.

In some ways, I respect his cowboy attitude -- to be decisive and unyielding are laudable traits. Unfortunately, too many times, he's been pig-headed w/ his decisions, ignoring more experienced council and trusting his gut despite significant dissent. Obviously, history decides greatness more than current consensus, so maybe he'll come out better in the wash.

Of course, no matter how imbalanced or fair this movie might be (obviously guessing the former, but you never know), I'd never see it. I understand the fascination people have with politics, but I've never understood the fascination with politicians (someone explain Obama-mania to me, please).

(Reply to this)

Hamboner writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:23 PM

It's kind of like the Hannity Conservatives vs. the Bush Haters. I guess there's no right answer, but I think a completely embellished film about Dick Cheney's education at the foot of Satan would be better.

You folks seem to exchanging bulletpoints, rather than debating. So I really can't take much from this whole thread. It's sad because you guys clearly care about your points. I don't like Bush's decisions but I wouldn't want to be the guy who had to face the situations he has faced.

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#1659473)
Oh and I almost forgot, Bush killed Sauron with his bare hands then proceeded to rip off his head and club Skeletor, Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il to death with it.

(Reply to this)

arcadefire325 writes:
on Mar 29 2008 03:42 PM

about 4000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. You are not getting your facts straight. where did you get the number??? off of some right wing blog on the internet. it is 4000 Americans dead in Iraq. The numbers are from the Pentagon you stupid ***!!! the internet can be just as biased as cable news. by the way, the economy is in the ****hole right now because of Bush's policies. yes, they did help pull down the statue then they started blowing us up. they love us so much by blowing us up. yeah that is real love there. Bush has no soul and does not care about anyone but himself.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 29 2008 05:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#1657989)
Arendr, that is the funniest post ever, 80-90,000 Iraqis did not die, more like 20,000. Dumbass liberal retard.

(Reply to this)

thethunder writes:
on Mar 29 2008 09:29 PM

Ellen Burstyn? Huh.....

ajmk123: " Arendr, that is the funniest post ever, 80-90,000 Iraqis did not die, more like 20,000. Dumbass liberal retard."

--Well, I guess that makes it all right then. It's only 20,000. Let's start counting, a number for each of them: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22...Even that's a lot of people.

(Reply to this)

Don't Tase Me Bro writes:
on Mar 30 2008 10:24 AM

Since we're now on the issue of numbers...let's get a little perspective going:

World War I Death Toll

Soldier: 9.7 million
Civilian: 10 million
Wounded: 20 million

World War II Death Toll

Soldier: 25 million
Civilian: 47 million
Wounded: 22.2 million

Korean War Death Tolls...estimated over 4 million soldier and civilian deaths (including over 33,600 US soldier deaths).

Vietnam War Death Tolls...estimated over 58,000 US solider deaths and 1.5 million civilian deaths.

The Iraq War...not to put too fine a point on it, pales, pales, pales in comparison to the death tolls from any of these aforementioned wars.

Was WWI worth it? History might say yes...but a disenfranchised Germany gave rise to Nazism and Hitler...costing us another World War...which gave us the Stalinist regime and over 40 years of Cold War...and how's North Korea these days?

The media would tell us that comparing the numbers of the dead in Iraq with past wars is obscene and offensive to each individual sacrifice, to grieving families, etc. But the same media look forward, with morbid anxiety, to posting yet another milestone statistic in Iraq. (I'm sure photoshopping is already underway for the 'big' "5,000 DEAD" headline at all the major newspapers around the nation).

When we think of Bush, comparisons with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al are never ending. Its weird, but Woodrow Wilson doesn't get absorbed into any major list of world tyrants. Neither does FDR. Eisenhower. Johnson. Yet each one sent millions of US soldiers to their deaths on foreign soils around the world with debatable results in those wars.

Sure, Bush is bad. But in the wake of 9'11, when Osama bin Laden was promising to make what happened to the Twin Towers there look tame by comparison over and over and over again...it must be said: he hasn't succeeded once on any of those promises since 9-11. One wonders if Stone will condescend to point that out...

/My post is waaaaay too long. You probably starting thinking about boobs halfway through.

(Reply to this)

BishopHaHa writes:
on Mar 30 2008 10:50 AM

In reply to this comment (#1657105)
But the Dem controlled congress has even lower approval ratings yet we hear little about them. More of that new "liberal" math I suppose.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 30 2008 12:45 PM

20,000 dead terrorist is a good thing, too bad all of them are not dead

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 30 2008 01:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#1660983)
I think those numbers are actually Iraqi civilian casualties, unless you're trying to say all Iraqi's are terrorists in which case I don't think you can be helped, but you do inadvertantly raise a good point, where are the numbers of enemy dead? Why is no one counting that?

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Mar 30 2008 01:38 PM

Enough with the concerns about showing both sides of an argument. You can argue Hitler's side of World War II, that doesn't make it a legitimate argument or a strong posititon. Sometimes the evidence on one side is irrefutable, beyond political position, and people need to wise up and accept it or you become blind followers of a falsity.

Bush's public opinion is overall negative, as is the war in Iraq. You can't disagree with that. Bush's presidency has been a lightning rod of controversy, he has pushed a one-sided agenda and ignored his opponents rather than compromising or bargaining. He was supposed to be a "uniter" but this country is more divided now than it has ever been. His record on the environment is abysmal, worse than any other modern president. I have friends who are Republicans and Independents, but no one of their right mind is defending the job Bush Jr. has done as President or where he has left this country. We are generally disliked in the world by both our enemies and our friends as arrogant, which is a pretty far swing from where America was 8 years ago.

You can accept the conservative agenda and dislike Bush Jr. and the job he's done. I see nothing wrong with this article by Rotten Tomato. We come here for opinion as well as fact, it gives us something to talk about. But let's not pretend Bush is an exceptional, good, or even fair president. I can't be that blind and neither can you.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 30 2008 02:19 PM

Shatter you are a blind arrogant fool, or basically a typical liberal. Why is it that the Democratic congress has a lower approval rating than Bush? Oh yeah that is because democrats are worse than bush. THAT IS A FACT.

There is no side of the Iraq war that is 100% correct, you are a retard if you think so. It is funny how idiots like you are against the war yet were okay with Saddam killing millions of his own people or better yet are complete hypocrites and want us to go into Dafur. Go away, your right to talk has been revoked.

While Bush is not a great president or a good president he is a good president and 10000000000000 times better than Clinton. So it is all good. He is average.

P.S Iraqi civilians that know who terrorists are, hide them, do not help the Iraqi government or the troops are infact terrorists too so good riddence to bad rubbish, too bad we cant send in idiots like Shatter24 into Iraq in order to help our gene pool.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 30 2008 02:23 PM

It is good to know that idiots like Shatter24 still wish for propaganda to be made. Guess what happens when people make movies or articles that show only one side of the argument, propaganda happens, you know the things that Hitler used to get into power. You are a disgrace to the human race. You and your idol Micheal Moore are on the same level as Hitler and Stalin. Go continue to wish propaganda on people.

P.S. Big Brother those are not the number of Iraqi civilians, the number of civilians is bar far lower, A LOT LOWER.

(Reply to this)

Don't Tase Me Bro writes:
on Mar 30 2008 03:59 PM

"Enough with the concerns about showing both sides of an argument. You can argue Hitler's side of World War II, that doesn't make it a legitimate argument or a strong posititon."

Shatter...if you're referring to the post I made earlier, I think your quick dismissal of the point I made about the great mass-murderers of the 20th century (Hitler among them) is premature. Is my point immediately disqualified as an legitimate argument or a strong opinion if I disagree with you?

The fact is that too many people have insisted on comparing Dubya to the great mass-murderers of the 20th century and I think doing so reveals a retarded logic. Don't get me wrong, he's by far not one of America's best presidents...but let's not forget Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson et al who have presided over more US soldier deaths in wars on foreign soil than a 100 George Bush Jrs could've done. Are the other presidents mass-murderers too?

Look, unless Fox News takes over all major media outlets (and Rupert Murdoch is slowly getting there), no sitting Republican President is going to be viewed favorably for too long. Clinton bombs an aspirin factory in Sudan filled with civilians in 1998...and it was waaaay under-reported. If Dubya had done the same act...he'd be called up before a War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague...

So I think it's important to look at why Bush's approval rating is so low (and lest we forget the Democrat-controlled Congress actually has LOWER-approval ratings) and it's important to recognize that the Surge has made a major difference there.

(Reply to this)

John09876 writes:
on Mar 31 2008 06:31 AM

This country is filled with people with tiny minds who are swayed by name calling

The democrats knew the only way they could ever win the White House after those 2 losses was to accuse the president of being a liar and murderer--and they actually got the dumbest of the dumb to believe them. Fools

Just the fact that this country didnt collapse after 911 should put Bush in high regard. Not one person polled after 911 thought the US would not be attacked again. Most thought we'd go right into a recession from the damage. So the dems knew they had to actually call the president a LIAR--which is unheard of. Yet some fools actaully believe them. Go check a non-partisan fact checking website(there are many of them)..you will see there is not one objective thinker that believes anything the dems say about Bush.

Now Dean is gonna try the same thing on Mccain(read deans latest lies so you hate Mccain too). Eventually Mccain will be painted as the antichrist. If you say something enough..eventually stupid people will believe it. For years the terrorists were saying the USA was evil and now even some americans believe it.

The media is liberal--so it will always seems as if the Dems are in the right and Reps are evil. However, the silent majority--you know..the people who dont care about Paris Hilton or have a 3rd graders view of this complicated world will be electing McCain and we'll have another 8 years of the Dems claiming that the US is run by Satan. Wonderful.

Dont believe this? A poll just came out that said 77% of Anericans believe Jesus was the son of God and Rose from the dead to save us from our sins. Your shocked right? If you polled the media and people surfing the internet--it would be something like 5%. Simply put...what you Read and See is grossly skewed by a scant minority view. People dont want the Dems agenda yet they infected by the media's constant brainwashing.

Im not saying they do it on purpose..but your views come through. Thats why Fox news seem so insane to Liberals. Its not insane..its exactly what MSNBC or CBS looks like to a conservative. It seems odd because all we have had is liberal arts broadcasted for the last 20 years. Even with that..the country, at heart, know the liberals are weak and possess a childs view of the world that invited 911. With Obama's pastor saying Jesus was a Black man persecuted by whites...it over people. And it should tell you just how weak the Dems really are to be so delusional to think Obama could be elected.

(Reply to this)

John09876 writes:
on Mar 31 2008 06:41 AM

One more thing...sorry

People in their SUV's dont understand sacrifice. It hurts them that someone would risk their life for something like helping forgieners. They feel guilt complaining about their TIVO when people are dying.

That is crux of this war protest.

500,000 americans died in WW2. 60 million people died. This is 4000. 55,000 died in Vietnam

People are so weak they dont see the world as it really is. 85 million people die every year---did you know that? Do you know how many of them die for nothing? These brave souls wont be in that catagory. The dems want to put them there by leaving the iraq's to get slaughtered. Yet no one seems to grap this concept.

What is life? Your Starbucks coffee? If this isnt worth life..what is? 4000 people. More die from bad beef than that. Stop the 3rd graders view of the world...stop the drama queen mentality like you really care so much. If you had a grain of understanding, you would see these are difficult choices.

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 31 2008 08:11 AM

I LOVE this argument about BUSH having kept us safe for the past 7 years because we haven't been attacked again. I won't even bother with the usual trenchant observations that it took at least the ensuing eight years between the '93 bombing and 9/11 for them to plan and execute an attack ON THE SAME SITE, thereby rendering it implausible that they would immediately attack again on this scale without similar planning...

But like I said, I won't bother with this observation.

I will instead offer a cute little story. There was a Donald Duck cartoon where he wears this helmet that he says makes him 'Emperor of America.' His nephews keep coming up to him and saying 'Prove it'
He simply replies 'How can you prove that I'm NOT?!'

The moral of this story is that if you are willing to accept proof of things that haven't happened as proof that you're safe, then you deserve to have an animated duck as your president. ..Which I would, quite frankly, rather have at this point.

(Reply to this)

minderbinder writes:
on Mar 31 2008 12:59 PM

"This country is filled with people with tiny minds who are swayed by name calling"

And you follow it up with name calling...

I believe the word for people like you is "hypocrite".

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Mar 31 2008 01:17 PM

OK, this debate is becoming decidedly un-fun and unhelpful. I'm out... I leave you with a quote from V for Vendetta...

"regardless of what weapons they try to use to effect silence, words will always retain their power. Words are the means to meaning, and for some, the annunciation of truth."

Instead of pointing fingers except responsibility yourself and take ownership of the situation and you'll never be wrong. That's the beauty of our system of government. Ultimately responsibility falls to the people for better or for worse and don't ever let anyone convince you otherwise.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Mar 31 2008 01:50 PM

Liberals like Tombstone have no understanding of responsibility

(Reply to this)

martinscorsese25 writes:
on Mar 31 2008 05:36 PM

hello people of RT.. i'm just 16 years old and i'm just trying to catch up with the great movies of the past.. i'm the only kid here in our nearby video rent store that rents old movies, cause i wanna know the greatest movies of all time. so far, i've liked martin scorsese, as you can see in my username.. i maybe the only person here in our neighborhood in the philippines that knows him... uhhhm i've just got one question, i saw stone's filmography and i've notice something... why the hell does he make many movies about president.. i mean is it his trademark or something... anyway, i've only watch two of his movies(alexander and WTC) but it seems that many of his films are about the president.. what the F*** is that about... ??!!!

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Apr 01 2008 07:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#1662934)
Foolish, ignorant little boy,

If it's a choice between not understanding 'responsibility' and not understanding

a) language
b) syntax
c) irony
d) English
e) grammar
f) humor
g) logic
h) insults
i) politics
j) history
k) economics
and
l) 'these changes happening to my body'

as you have publicly, *painfully* and embarrassingly demonstrated that you do not have the slightest grasp of through the many posts of yours I've had the amusement to read,

...I'll take not understanding 'responsibility'

(Reply to this)

TomasSPAGHetti writes:
on Apr 01 2008 10:14 AM

I see a lot of spelling mistakes... tsk tsk. Maybe Bush really is that influential.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Apr 01 2008 10:57 AM

Sorry tombstone but like a typical liberal your insult fails. Next time try to insult someone who is not better than you in every single way. ****ing retard.

(Reply to this)

Raptor Egg writes:
on Apr 01 2008 06:45 PM

OLIVIA Stone hasn't made a good film since Natural Born Killers. And Josh Brolin as Bush, I just don't see it. Hopefully this will be more exciting than World Trade Center, RIIIIIIIIGGGHHH?? RIGH?

(Reply to this)

Jacen Dark writes:
on Apr 02 2008 01:14 AM

ajmk123 your response fails

(Reply to this)

Defshep writes:
on Apr 02 2008 02:47 AM

In reply to this comment (#1659294)
7 years and no major terrorist attack on US soil? Before 1993, how many acts of terrorism did we have in this country? The Ministry, er, Department of Homeland Security has just gotten lucky. American citizens are more closely watched and scrutinized than ever. But phony bombs and knives are still being smuggled onto planes, aren't they?

(Reply to this)

Don't Tase Me Bro writes:
on Apr 02 2008 07:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#1665480)
DEFSHEP

"[The] Department of Homeland Security has just gotten lucky."

Oh yeah...it's just sheer dumb luck. And those phony knives and bombs that get smuggled onto planes...what you don't hear is how many attempts fail...

There's no such thing as 'air-tight' security anywhere...

And while Bush and his policies drive me mad, you can't argue with the facts: Since 9-11 Bin Laden and his worldwide terror network have become united and mobilized...in ways that should've already seen attacks on our soil in the past 7 years. Bin Laden and his ilk keep promising it will happen...what have they been doing for the past 7 years? Waiting for their luck to turn?

During Clinton's 8-year run, the World Trade Center was bombed on February 26, 1993 killing 6 and injuring 1000. (I was actually in New York when this happened).

On November 13, 1995...a car bomb was set off near an American-run military training facility killing 5 Americans.

On June 25, 1996 another car bomb (actually a truck with over 5,000 lbs of explosives) detonated outside the Khobar Towers apartment complex which housed American military personnel killing over 19 Americans and wounding over 300 more.

On August 7, 1998 a series of car bombs detonated outside American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killing 224 people and wounding over 5,000.

On October 12, 2000 two suicide bombers detonated an explosive-laden skiff next to the USS Cole Battleship (while it was refueling) in Yemen killing 17 American soldiers and injuring 37 more.

Throughout the Clinton administration terrorists have been targeting Americans abroad and what eventually happened on 9-11 was a series of missteps and non-vigilance by a President more concerned with staving off his impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky trial.

I don't personally agree with the Iraq War. If going to war is truly in the DNA of our country...then the world would've been better served going to Iran...than Iraq...

Under 'Dubya' American soil has been better protected than it has been for many, many years. If that's 'luck' to you...then you can thank the Leprechauns and unicorns for the luck and magic they bestow on the USA...

/Doubtful Oliver Stone will depict Leprechauns and unicorns in his film...

(Reply to this)

nulife02 writes:
on May 23 2008 08:01 AM

Mr. Stone, why not do one of your famous hit pieces on the administration of BJ (Bill Jefferson) Clinton? The abundance of salacious material would obviously make a great movie. Your extreme liberal bias is made even more apparent in your selection (or non-selection) of movie subjects. I am no fan W myself, except for the way he has handled the terrorists in the face of a bunch of whiny, childish libs in the media and congress. Other than that, his administration has been a disaster, especially for the Republican Party.

(Reply to this)

FunWithWarCrimes writes:
on May 23 2008 07:17 PM

It will be an interesting look into Bush%u2019s past for sure.
Take a look at the future of Bush at www.funwithwarcrimes.com

(Reply to this)

RelaxAir writes:
on Jul 01 2008 06:02 PM

So Oliver Stone is starting to film a new flick and get this: It's a critical take on our lame duck President George Bush.
How daring! How gutsy! How boring.

What's next for Stone: A movie about the displeasure of diarrhea? Seriously, I've read fortune cookies that are less predictable than this tripe. But let's face it, Stone only makes movies for people who already agree with him. He doesn't just preach to the choir, he gives them a tongue bath.

See, Stone is like a child who puts on skits for his family in the living room over the holidays. He's playing to a besotted crowd %u2014 they won't tell him he sucks. It's worse than stabbing gramps with his own Nazi-era decorative sword.

The fact is, true controversy requires more guts than Stone has. If he had real balls, he'd do a movie about radical Islam %u2014 the folks who behead Americans for fun. But maybe he doesn't want to end up like the murdered director Theo Van Gogh. I don't either.

RelatedColumn Archive
The Public Pressures of Publicizing Your Love for SomeoneIs Barack Obama More Afraid of U.S. Than Its Enemies?Society Does Its Best Work While Watching TVAdvantages to Having a Big FamilyYou're a Brave Man, Oliver StoneFull-page Greg-alogue Archive

Video
Don't beat yourself up. Watch Greg's Greg-alogue Show Info
Airs Weekdays at 2 a.m. ET
E-mail the Show: redeye@foxnews.com Greg Gutfeld's Bio Greg's Greg-alogue Archive Greg Draws the News! But he doesn't even have to do that. Just once, I'd like to see him or anyone currently working in Hollywood try to make a film that doesn't paint America as a bully.

But then I remember that Stone's last flick was a Valentine to Fidel Castro %u2014 an endorsement of a criminal that was so bad even HBO wanted to hide it %u2014 and they hired Bill Maher and Tracey Ullman.

In the end though, no one will care. The movie will only be seen by smelly grad students and their tapeworms %u2014 who, if they had hands, would give the film two thumbs up.

And, if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 3 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com -- LINK - www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355091,00.html

(Reply to this)

invert48 writes:
on Aug 17 2008 12:55 AM

this guy looks absolutely nothing like george w. bush. no resemblence whatsoever. it's incredible. and don't ya think it's kinda soon? i mean he's still president. and the people playing the people in this movie are probably the same age. thats just weird. but that wouldnt matter if the actor looked like george w. bush. i do like the idea of making the movie called W though. (sounds like sarcasm but it's not) and how are they going to go about showing how all of america thinks hes a moron. hes the most made fun of president of all time so much so that i don't see how they can't mention it and if they do it'll probably ruin the whole vibe of the movie. and the fact that he messes words up and does stupid ****. how can they show that in a dramatic fashion? if olive stone pulls this off then he's the best director alive.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

W.

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links