Oliver Stone's W (as in Bush) - teaser trailer leaked

[jetsetter]

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJh7Md5KuWc&fmt=18


Looks interesting.p-)

[jetsetter]

You may not be able to view it with the embed, try the link if you can't.

[LaoSexMachine]

I would go see it.

[-Church-]

Not totally sold on it yet, but I'd love to watch it with Bush. But then again I'd probably go swimming or eat BBQ with this guy.

[jetsetter]

Not totally sold on it yet, but I'd love to watch it with Bush. But then again I'd probably go swimming or eat BBQ with this guy.

It does look like he can have a good time.

[Power_serj]

This movie looks like it's going to have a lot spins on it to make him look like a bad person. I might watch it when it comes on t.v.

[jetsetter]

This movie looks like it's going to have a lot spins on it to make him look like a bad person. I might watch it when it comes on t.v.

I'm not so sure but it is possible.

[Jeremiah]

Hit piece?

http://youtube.com/v/pdQtxGjUF5A

[sidman69]

hmmmm, i wonder if it'll be a wide release or limited release.

[budgie]

A bit like Primary Colours - a few years too late. Besides Stone should have waited a few decades till history recognised the...cough... 'true genius' of the Bush admin's policies before realsing a verdict....

[Createdeemcee]

looked like he Partied it up. "Youre a bush not a kennedy!"nice.

[Bia]

This movie looks like it's going to have a lot spins on it to make him look like a bad person.Spins not needed for that silly.

[GoSka37]

Looks interesting. I might put out the 8.50 to see it.

[Redguy]

I find it absolutely hilarious that all these Dubya haters are going to pay 7.50 to see a movie about him. Bush jokes are soo 7 years ago.

[GoSka37]

I find it absolutely hilarious that all these Dubya haters are going to pay 7.50 to see a movie about him. Bush jokes are soo 7 years ago.

I find it hilarious that a bunch of Bush Supporters are going to go pay 7.50+ to see it also.:roll:

[wildcat]

looks like a lame made movie, I hope it flops in it second week.

It like buying a new album form your favorite band to find have the songs are remixes, leaves you filling like you got ripped off.

I think Olive Stone hatred has blind him.

[D-gin]

It has some good actors in it. I'll toss down the 8.50 to watch it.

[WarDancer]

Oliver Stone, Michael Moore. Whats the difference?

[muttbutt]

Oliver Stone, Michael Moore. Whats the difference?
1 actually went to a war instead of just yapping about it all the time?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

This movie looks like it's going to have a lot spins on it to make him look like a bad person.

He did that all by himself. Ok with the help of a load of 'neocons' whose true allegiance is to another country entirely.

[Gunge]

typical bush derangement syndrome
i bet it flops

[Mu-Meson]

typical bush derangement syndrome
i bet it flops

Should do very well in Europe I am sure. Guaranteed prize winner for numerous film festivals. Criteria for film festivals has become: 1) Excellent film - original/thought-provoking/inspiring etc or 2) Bashes Bush.
Either is enough to win.

[Polygon]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/07/27/oliver-stones-w-teaser-trailer/

Here is a link to said trailer since previous links have been taken down.

I have to admit, looks interesting, whether or not I'll see it in theaters is another issue.

[SBL]

Looks ridiculous.

[Laworkerbee]

It has some good actors in it. I'll toss down the 8.50 to watch it.

Why do you hate America?

[chauncy republicans]

What looks so ridiculous about it? In my opinion from what I could gather from just the trailer it could be rather inspiring. What ever people say about Bush he's a man of great will-power, and the way he was able to turn his life around is evidence of that.

[Macs.]

The cast looks like a total comedy.

Also, I will accept no movie about George Bush without Leslie Nelson in the role of George Bush. That would fit just perfectly.

[SBL]

What looks so ridiculous about it? In my opinion from what I could gather from just the trailer it could be rather inspiring. What ever people say about Bush he's a man of great will-power, and the way he was able to turn his life around is evidence of that.
Well, all one can do at this point is guess, and I guess that it's going to be a celluloid dogpile. A snide parting shot from the Hollywood crowd before Bush steps down from office. You know, real grown-up stuff.

[chauncy republicans]

Well, all one can do at this point is guess, and I guess that it's going to be a celluloid dogpile. A snide parting shot from the Hollywood crowd before Bush steps down from office. You know, real grown-up stuff.
It wouldn't surprise me, but I wasn't able to gather all that from the trailer.

[ronnieraygun]

p-)

Aren't these people worried about getting audited?

Is the release date after the current administration gets out of office?

[SBL]

It wouldn't surprise me, but I wasn't able to gather all that from the trailer.
Time will tell. I think it's pretty evident, myself.

[Power_serj]

He did that all by himself. Ok with the help of a load of 'neocons' whose true allegiance is to another country entirely.
You're an idiot. This movie has to do with his life, not his presidency as much, according to the trailer. Also, wtf are you talking about having allegiance to another country? Are you a conspiracy theorist? "Neocon?" President Bush was the only recent president to have the balls to actually do something against the bastards who have been attacking the United States and our interests for years, unlike Clinton.

I doubt that this movie will be anything more than a personal attack on our President because he has moved from the pacifist policies of the Clinton Administration, to defend our country. How is he really going to know how his life went without asking the President himself? Will he create a movie on Barrack Obama, whose life was more interesting with events such as going to a madrassa in Indonesia, being a pothead and being involved in Marxist and black nationalist groups? I think not! The only thing I plan on paying for money about President Bush is President Bush's own autobiography when he steps down from office.

[MonkeyLibFront]

You're an idiot. This movie has to do with his life, not his presidency as much, according to the trailer. Also, wtf are you talking about having allegiance to another country? Are you a conspiracy theorist? President Bush was the only recent president to have the balls to actually do something against the bastards who have been attacking the United States and our interests for years, unlike Clinton.

I doubt that this movie will be anything more than a personal attack on our President because he has moved from the pacifist policies of the Clinton Administration, to defend our country. How is he really going to know how his life went without asking the President himself? The only thing I plan on paying for money about President Bush is President Bush's own autobiography when he steps down from office.

Iraq attacked you?

[helomech]

Since Oliver Stone appears to be a Republican Party/Bush hater,this film will certainly be unflattering towards W,but it does have James Cromwell in it so that's at least one good thing going for it

[ed316]

I'll go see it. I don't think Bush is a bad president or an excellent one. He did what he thought was best for the country. The policies toward Iraq and Afghanistan and the fruit or lack there of will be known when I'm probably old and at the end of my time here on Earth. IMO

[Power_serj]

Iraq attacked you?

Al Qaeda did. He was the only one to stop their attacks by them by ordering the invasion of Afghanistan and initiating the Global War on Terrorism. If Saddam did have WMDs like intelligence pointed to, these weapons could have easily been used against the United States and our interests. Remember, this guy was not an angel, he tried to invade two of his neighbors and would not allow the United States or the UN to check to see if he was creating these weapons. Saddam in possession of chemical weapons would have been catastrophic had he used these weapons. Even Clinton and the Democrats had acknowledged that he was a threat to the region and American interests.

President Bush took the proper preventitive measures to make sure Saddam cannot and will not attack the United States or our interests. Had Saddam had his Fadayeen carry out an attack against the United States or had he attacked a major oil producer in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, the results would have been catastrophic. The global economy would suffer and Saddam would reach his goal of killing thousands while profiteering from the catastrophe. At that point, doing anything against Iraq would have been impossible.

I'm no fan of President Bush either. It's just that everyone is wrong about his foreign policy and his decisions were completely appropriate and almost any other President would have done the same. Everything being said about him is in hindsight because the Iraq War didn't end as quick as expected.

[Polygon]

Al Qaeda did. He was the only one to stop their attacks by them by ordering the invasion of Afghanistan and initiating the Global War on Terrorism. If Saddam did have WMDs like intelligence pointed to, these weapons could have easily been used against the United States and our interests. Remember, this guy was not an angel, he tried to invade two of his neighbors and would not allow the United States or the UN to check to see if he was creating these weapons. Saddam in possession of chemical weapons would have been catastrophic had he used these weapons. Even Clinton and the Democrats had acknowledged that he was a threat to the region and American interests.

President Bush took the proper preventitive measures to make sure Saddam cannot and will not attack the United States or our interests. Had Saddam had his Fadayeen carry out an attack against the United States or had he attacked a major oil producer in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, the results would have been catastrophic. The global economy would suffer and Saddam would reach his goal of killing thousands while profiteering by selling oil from the catastrophe. At that point, doing anything against Iraq would have been impossible.

Speaking in regards to just Iraq, is there any hard evidence to substantiate that Saddam Hussein was planning to develop a weapons program to attack the United States in this manner you described? What you are describing is hypothetical at best. The main issue with justifying the invasion of Iraq is that we lacked truly concrete evidence to indicate the positive existence of WMDs. It was revealed largely after the invasion that any weapons program being pursued by Iraq had been derailed by economic sanctions. However, there were some stock piles found as left overs from Desert Storm, but mostly poorly stored and neglected.

In my opinion, Saddam deceived weapon inspectors and those trying to discover whether or not he had WMDs in order to maintain his strong man rule in Iraq and fear he instilled in his own citizens.

[Macs.]

Al Qaeda did. He was the only one to stop their attacks by them by ordering the invasion of Afghanistan and initiating the Global War on Terrorism.

So there actually was no real connection between OIF and the global war on terror, was there ?

The rhetoric that invading these two countries to stop terror attacks in western countries - I find that totally absurd. Even more so when the vast majority of them is from other countries, such as Saudia Arabia that is considered a "Ally", for some reasons.

Out of my head - I can't recall that any of the Terrorist from 9/11, Madrid and London were actually from Iraq or Afghanistan, the majority was Saudi Arabian if my memory serves me right.

And evidently Al Qaeda has not stopped from existing, nor even carrying out further terror attacks.


And to the theory that Iraq would have attacked the USA or Saudi Arabia - How ? The US is far far away, and they would have been only possibly to fight a proxy. And I don't really see how the Iraqi Army, which was in not top-notch standard could have done anything against the subventioned Saudi army. Not even speaking of that in such a case the US properly would have been fast to deploy troops.

[Createdeemcee]

In my opinion, Saddam deceived weapon inspectors and those trying to discover whether or not he had WMDs in order to maintain his strong man rule in Iraq and fear he instilled in his own citizens.


Talking to some people in here is like talking to walls man, They are blind with open eyes.

[M1A2U2]

i bet will ferrell would have done a better job than this guy

[Mackie]

And evidently Al Qaeda has not stopped from existing, nor even carrying out further terror attacks.


But now eqiped with Iraqi Army weapons. p-)

The question is why they faked pictures about WMD trucks or deceive intelligent agencys?

[Power_serj]

So there actually was no real connection between OIF and the global war on terror, was there ?

The stated purpose was to stop an attack before one could happen.

The rhetoric that invading these two countries to stop terror attacks in western countries - I find that totally absurd. Even more so when the vast majority of them is from other countries, such as Saudia Arabia that is considered a "Ally", for some reasons.

Saudi Arabia is an ally for obvious strategic reasons.

Out of my head - I can't recall that any of the Terrorist from 9/11, Madrid and London were actually from Iraq or Afghanistan, the majority was Saudi Arabian if my memory serves me right.

Regardless of where they were born, Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden himself, trained in Afghanistan and used Afghanistan as a staging ground for the September 11 attacks and many other terrorist attacks across the globe with permission from the Taliban.

And evidently Al Qaeda has not stopped from existing, nor even carrying out further terror attacks.

Al Qaeda attacks during Clinton Administration against the United States:

*1993 World Trade Center bombings; six Americans killed
* 1995 bombings in Saudi Arabia; 5 Americans killed
*1996 Khobar Bombings; 19 killed and 200 Americans wounded
* 1998 US embassy bombed in Kenya; 224 killed, 5,000 wounded
* 2000 Cole bombing; 17 killed, 39 wounded

Al Qaeda was obviously getting stronger and more daring. Since the War on Terror, how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans? I cannot find one!



And to the theory that Iraq would have attacked the USA or Saudi Arabia - How ? The US is far far away, and they would have been only possibly to fight a proxy.

The 9/11 high jackers and Bin Laden lived far far away from US. They killed 3,000 people in one day. Imagine what they could have done with chemical weapons if Saddam still had them!

And I don't really see how the Iraqi Army, which was in not top-notch standard could have done anything against the subventioned Saudi army. Not even speaking of that in such a case the US properly would have been fast to deploy troops.

I was referring to if they had chemical weapons still, as appropriately suspected based on Saddam's unwillingness to allow inspectors in his country.

..................

[Power_serj]

Speaking in regards to just Iraq, is there any hard evidence to substantiate that Saddam Hussein was planning to develop a weapons program to attack the United States in this manner you described?

No there wasn't. There also wasn't any hard evidence to substantiate that Bin Laden was planning to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 either.

What you are describing is hypothetical at best. The main issue with justifying the invasion of Iraq is that we lacked truly concrete evidence to indicate the positive existence of WMDs. It was revealed largely after the invasion that any weapons program being pursued by Iraq had been derailed by economic sanctions. However, there were some stock piles found as left overs from Desert Storm, but mostly poorly stored and neglected.

In my opinion, Saddam deceived weapon inspectors and those trying to discover whether or not he had WMDs in order to maintain his strong man rule in Iraq and fear he instilled in his own citizens.

Hindsight 20/20


...............

[Macs.]

Regardless of where they were born, Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden himself, trained in Afghanistan and used Afghanistan as a staging ground for the September 11 attacks and many other terrorist attacks across the globe with permission from the Taliban.

True, and it obviously at that timepoint was a good idea to invade Afghanistan. But don't you think that this place is interchangeable ? From what one could gather it seems that Al-Qaeda decentralized and not acting with a clear chain of command.

And when using this tactic - Why is Pakistan not invaded yet ?


Al Qaeda attacks during Clinton Administration against the United States:

*1993 World Trade Center bombings; six Americans killed
* 1995 bombings in Saudi Arabia; 5 Americans killed
*1996 Khobar Bombings; 19 killed and 200 Americans wounded
* 1998 US embassy bombed in Kenya; 224 killed, 5,000 wounded
* 2000 Cole bombing; 17 killed, 39 wounded

Al Qaeda was obviously getting stronger and more daring. Since the War on Terror, how many terrorist attacks have there been on Americans? I cannot find one!

Well, not counting the attacks against troops - And obviously it's not always clear wheter Al-Qaeda or a other islamic terror group is behind it, but that doesn't really make a huge difference, does it ? Here are some terror attacks, only against Americans/American locations:

2002 June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004 May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005 Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006 Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007 Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: More than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

-------------

So it's up to you if you believe that there are no attacks because of military invention in a far away country, or simply because the national security and LEO agencies are doing a good work.


The 9/11 high jackers and Bin Laden lived far far away from US. They killed 3,000 people in one day. Imagine what they could have done with chemical weapons if Saddam still had them!

Saddam Hussein working with Bin Laden ?

That is theoretical speaking. But even now - Do you think he would be the only man capable of delivering chemical weapons to Al-Kaida and other terror organisations ? There is alot going on, not even only islamic - there still is a black market - and homemade chemical weapons are out there too.

I guess the difficult thing for them would be to actually get this stuff and terrorists into the US. Which leads to another question: With this huge War on Terror, Billions and billions and billions spent on Military and on the Homefront - How can it be that the US-Mexican border still seems to be a large loophole for bringing stuff/people illegal into the US ?

[Macs.]

Speaking in regards to just Iraq, is there any hard evidence to substantiate that Saddam Hussein was planning to develop a weapons program to attack the United States in this manner you described?

No there wasn't. There also wasn't any hard evidence to substantiate that Bin Laden was planning to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 either.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing was a member of Al-Qaeda. And he was also VERY big head in the 9/11 attacks.

And not too get too deep into this - But some of the 9/11 eleven attacks were known/suspected before - And if I recall correctly within security circles/agencies a attack using Airplanes by Al-Qaeda was feared before 9/11. Doesn't the 9/11 commission write on that topic too ?

[Polygon]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing was a member of Al-Qaeda. And he was also VERY big head in the 9/11 attacks.

And not too get too deep into this - But some of the 9/11 eleven attacks were known/suspected before - And if I recall correctly within security circles/agencies a attack using Airplanes by Al-Qaeda was feared before 9/11. Doesn't the 9/11 commission write on that topic too ?

That is true, if I recall correctly, there was evidence at the time suggesting a possible attack within the United States, just not a specific location such as The Pentagon or WTC.

[Power_serj]

True, and it obviously at that timepoint was a good idea to invade Afghanistan. But don't you think that this place is interchangeable ? From what one could gather it seems that Al-Qaeda decentralized and not acting with a clear chain of command.

And when using this tactic - Why is Pakistan not invaded yet?
Al Qaeda in Pakistan is being dealt with, with airstrikes and pressuring the government to deal with the Islamists.



Well, not counting the attacks against troops - And obviously it's not always clear wheter Al-Qaeda or a other islamic terror group is behind it, but that doesn't really make a huge difference, does it ? Here are some terror attacks, only against Americans/American locations:

It does make a huge difference. Al Qaeda is highly decentralized and has no base for a staging area for any major terror attacks against the United States or her interests.

-------------

So it's up to you if you believe that there are no attacks because of military invention in a far away country, or simply because the national security and LEO agencies are doing a good work.

I believe it's both.



Saddam Hussein working with Bin Laden ?

I did not mean to make it sound like I was connecting Saddam with Bin Laden. I definately was not. What I meant was that if Saddam did attack the United States or Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons it would have been worse then 9/11, financially and the amount of casualities. I reread what I said and I can see how you interpreted it that way though.

That is theoretical speaking. But even now - Do you think he would be the only man capable of delivering chemical weapons to Al-Kaida and other terror organisations ? There is alot going on, not even only islamic - there still is a black market - and homemade chemical weapons are out there too.

Of course there is a possibility of chemical weapons/terrorist attacks coming from elsewhere besides Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't defend ourselves against what we can. That would be similar to letting drug dealers go loose because drugs can come from somewhere else anyway, or letting gang bangers free because there will always be others.

I guess the difficult thing for them would be to actually get this stuff and terrorists into the US. Which leads to another question: With this huge War on Terror, Billions and billions and billions spent on Military and on the Homefront - How can it be that the US-Mexican border still seems to be a large loophole for bringing stuff/people illegal into the US ?
Idiotic politicians.


...............................

[Power_serj]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing was a member of Al-Qaeda. And he was also VERY big head in the 9/11 attacks.

And not too get too deep into this - But some of the 9/11 eleven attacks were known/suspected before - And if I recall correctly within security circles/agencies a attack using Airplanes by Al-Qaeda was feared before 9/11. Doesn't the 9/11 commission write on that topic too ?

That actually goes with my point. President Clinton probably should have done more against Al Qaeda than he had. It's too bad that 9/11 had to happen before our politicians actually took Al Qaeda and global terrorism seriously.

Sorry for hijacking this thread. Feel free to make your last points Macs, I'd rather not completely destroy this thread. Anyway, at this point I feel I've made all the arguments I can before we'll start repeating ourselves. Then from there you know how that leads to some moron joining our debate/exchange of ideas with personal attacks.

[Bia]

p-)

Aren't these people worried about getting audited?

Seriously... that is on a level of paranoia that reaks of TV/Internet pseudo mythology.

Perhaps shutting off electronic media and observing real life might help you with this condition.

:P

[DaveDash]

Iraq attacked you?

So many people forget Iraq attacked Kuwait, causing Gulf War 1, in which most of the Western nations bombed the living heck of out Iraq and reduced it to the stone age. They then encouraged a failed coup, turned around, and left the country in ruins. That was OK though, because the U.N. said so.

Then during years of sanctions which bled the country dry, so it could not rebuild (which was also OK, because the U.N. said so), Iraq and the U.S. were in a state of cease-fire, with occasional attacks on U.S. aircraft over the no fly zones. Just because it wasn't on your TV screens every day, means you probably forgot about that.

In 2003, the cease-fire was broken. It wasn't exactly a brand new conflict that started out of nothing. You, like many people, forgot about the past 10+ years because it wasn't all over your TV. In this conflict, the U.S. and allies risked the lives of its own flesh and blood to minimise damage to civilian casualties and infrastructure, and then has since spent billions of dollars attempting to rebuild the country, but that is NOT OK with most people because the U.N didn't say it was.


What the U.S. should have done, clearly, was just come clean that this war was actually about securing oil in a world with dwindling supply*, given the French and Russians reinbursment for the billions of dollar contracts Saddam had promised them, and the U.N would have said that bombing the living cr*p out of the country again was OK. Everyone would have been happy! Yay! (except, the Iraqi people).

*I find it ironic all the "no blood for oil" protests, when now, people are protesting high oil prices. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too.

[SoftLion]

I wont watch this movie for the same reason I wouldn't watch any Hollywood flick about a recent President - I would prefer to do my own investigating and come to my own conclusions and biases rather paying 10 bucks to have someone else do it for me. By the way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a true story.

[Bia]

You, like many people, forgot about the past 10+ years because it wasn't all over your TV. In this conflict, the U.S. and allies risked the lives of its own flesh and blood to minimise damage to civilian casualties and infrastructure... Are you speaking of the enforced sanctions?

[SBL]

Are you speaking of the enforced sanctions?
I believe he means the No Fly Zones.

[Bia]

I believe he means the No Fly Zones.Ahh... Thanks. I am very ignorant to many of the facts I admit.

[DaveDash]

What I mean is that the end of the Gulf War 1 was a cease-fire. It was not peace by any stretch of the imagination, and in 2003 it wasn't a war the U.S. started. They decided to resume hostilities and break the cease-fire.
It could have happened under Clinton's watch too, and very well might have, if even a single U.S. plane was shot down over Iraqi territory during the cease-fire period. The Iraqis however were wowefully poor vs U.S. pilot skill, so that never happened.

Forget Al-Qaeda, forget WMD. Whether Saddam was actually a threat military is of no question. He wasn't. However, he was quite a big threat economically to both the U.S. and Britian.

People tend to forget that he actually started this entire mess quite a long time ago, so I suppose they can be forgiven. There is all this misinformation about the U.S. being the one to blame for his beginnings, but I'd take a much closer look at France, Russia, Germany, and Italy first, in particular, a Mr Chirac - who was so against the 2003 war - was Saddams biggest fan "back in the day".

Iraq has really been nothing more than an economic proxy war between Chirac (And Russia) and the U.S, Euro vs Dollar, Oil Contracts vs No Oil Contracts. "Ally" vs "Ally". It's all about Euros, Dollars, and Oil. Not that I disagree with the war, I actually agree with it.

After reading Bob Woodwards book "Plan of Attack", I actually believe Bush felt that Saddam was a real threat to the U.S. Some of his advisors however, such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, and even Tenet definately did stretch the imagination a little and mislead Bush about the true reason Saddam was a threat.
Let's not forget Rumsfeld's and Cheney's hard-on to secure Middle Eastern oil due to declining oil production (which has now happened) around the world. Bush W initially wanted to remove Saddam from power covertly, but Tenet came back and said that Saddam was impossible to remove via a coup - the only way was to get rid of him with the military. Tenet also said it was a "Slam Dunk" he had WMD. This is not surprising however since Saddams circle made up progress reports on WMD development to please Saddam, and he himself probably thought he had WMD.

All in all, to think Iraq 2003 was Bush's thing is ignroing the facts. It had been brewing for years. Saddam set himself up as an easy target, and with the U.S.'s energy supplies being threatened by declining oil production, The Euro, and French and Russian wooing of Saddam, it was a no brainer that Iraq would have been invaded sooner or later, by Bush, or someone else, Republican, or Democrat.

Up Next: Watch Venezuela. Chavez is desperately trying to distance himself from U.S. dependancy and trying to woo China, as a populist move to create a common enemy out of the U.S. to cement his support. His latest move is to try and get China to build a refinery in Venezuela to remove U.S. dependancy. It doesnt matter who is next in line for President in the U.S. - Obama or McCain, but the more in danger he puts the energy supply of the U.S. the more likely he will be removed one way or another.

Is this a bad thing? No. Humans have fought over resources throughout our entire history, and will continue to do so forever. If you're bitching about high oil prices - but don't want someone on your behalf to pay the price - then you either need to accept the fact that it's just going to get worse and buy a bike, move to the country, and start growing your own potatoes.

Its the demand of you, me, and everyone else who wants oil/plastic that is the reason we fight over it. Stop using it, and put the "No blood for oil" mantra where your mouth is.

[SBL]

I believe a couple blackhawks were shot down during the NFZ days. Friendly fire.

[DaveDash]

I believe a couple blackhawks were shot down during the NFZ days. Friendly fire.

If one Pilot was shot down due to enemy fire (and they got fired upon on a semi-regular basis, apparently), or worse, captured, the current plans ended up on an escalation course that would have finished with over 400,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Now that would have been one hell of a cluster ****, given the state of the U.S. military at that time.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You're an idiot. This movie has to do with his life, not his presidency as much, according to the trailer. Also, wtf are you talking about having allegiance to another country? Are you a conspiracy theorist? "Neocon?" President Bush was the only recent president to have the balls to actually do something against the bastards who have been attacking the United States and our interests for years, unlike Clinton.


Hey Einstein when did Iraq attack the USA?
:roll:

[SilentType]

Oliver Stone is a full fledged tinfoil hat guy.

Plus, I'm sorry, but his movies all just have this very 80's feel to them in the way that he shoots and has them edited.

[DaveDash]

Hey Einstein when did Iraq attack the USA?
:roll:

Hey Einstein learn to read. :roll:

He said 'ANd our interests'

I think Kuwait/Oil/The Middle Eastern Sphere is defininatly in the realm of "U.S." interests.

Are you denying that Saddam attacked Kuwait?

Also, the intent of his post, which is clearly well above your head, was aimed more at Al Qaeda/Islamic Terrorism than Iraq. And he is right. Clinton's inaction, while in hindsight doesn't seem that bad, bolstered and encouraged certian groups to get where they got today. Pulling out of Somalia, firing cruise missiles at empty camps, etc etc just made the U.S. look like a big ol paper tiger in the eyes of Islamsit extremeists. Kill a few Americans, and they run away. Kill a lot, and hopefully they'll pull out of the Middle East!

I think however, any U.S. President would have cracked down on that after 9/11, not just Bush.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

Like it or not, this film will be accurate as a biography of George W. Bush.
You may not like Stone's undertones and camera tricks, and emotive story telling style, but when he does a project like this, it's well researched and widely accepted as accurate.

So if you don't like what you're seeing, it's might be because of G.W. not necessarily Stone. He's just mirror you might say.

Why would we want to have a George W. Bush movie that isn't controversial?
That would be lame.

[Power_serj]

^^^How are you already saying that it's a true story without even seeing it? How is Mr.Stone going to get an accurate story of President Bush's life without the President giving any of his personal input? It may be "based on a true story" but it won't be a biography.



Hey Einstein when did Iraq attack the USA?
:roll:

Hey Einstein, why don't you go back and read my posts. I already answered that question.

[DaveDash]

Oliver Stone does try to do accurate portrayals, no matter the controversay (Alexander).
Whether or not it's actually a good film however, we will see. (Alexander was extremely boring for me, and I love my classical history).

[Winger]

Hey Einstein learn to read. :roll:

He said 'ANd our interests'

I think Kuwait/Oil/The Middle Eastern Sphere is defininatly in the realm of "U.S." interests.

Are you denying that Saddam attacked Kuwait?

Also, the intent of his post, which is clearly well above your head, was aimed more at Al Qaeda/Islamic Terrorism than Iraq. And he is right. Clinton's inaction, while in hindsight doesn't seem that bad, bolstered and encouraged certian groups to get where they got today. Pulling out of Somalia, firing cruise missiles at empty camps, etc etc just made the U.S. look like a big ol paper tiger in the eyes of Islamsit extremeists. Kill a few Americans, and they run away. Kill a lot, and hopefully they'll pull out of the Middle East!

I think however, any U.S. President would have cracked down on that after 9/11, not just Bush.

Dave, beware the stumbling drunkards around here spouting one-liners.

On topic, I'll watch anything Oliver Stone makes at least once including this one. But, only if the actor playing W says "strategery" multiple times p-)

[iLikeFlickerstick]

The film is actually being classified as a Biopic. Which means it needs to be a fair and honest attempt at an accurate portrayal which can be verified by sources and evidence.

Stone is a story teller, and so he uses a lot of emotional language, editing, and filming, etc. And he is usually pretty well researched on the historical aspects of his movies, often recreating real life characters. His scripts are based off researched and verified facts.

He also tries to understand and reveal the psychology behind the controversies and characters, which when combined with his emotive filmmaking style can be a little rough on audiences.

But he's legit.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

How is Mr.Stone going to get an accurate story of President Bush's life without the President giving any of his personal input? It may be "based on a true story" but it won't be a biography.

well actually, you can never remove all personal input. And you shouldn't want to. It makes for more honest and real story telling. Editors, authors and journalists give inject their own input all the time and its what makes them so great, so real.

All I'm saying is film won't be some Liberal Slander flick, whatever that even means.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

PowerSerj...

sorry, you wrote that 'how will the President be able to give his own input.'

Good question, I don't know. I would definitely like to find out. I'll look around and see what I come up with.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

^^^How are you already saying that it's a true story without even seeing it? How is Mr.Stone going to get an accurate story of President Bush's life without the President giving any of his personal input? It may be "based on a true story" but it won't be a biography.




Hey Einstein, why don't you go back and read my posts. I already answered that question.

But you gave a bullsh1t answer :roll:

Have you worked out whose interests the neocons were really serving yet?
LOL

rofl

[D-gin]

Why do you hate America?
You know me better then that, Bee.