“[Oliver Stone] and his cast plainly don’t understand George W. Bush so they,...settle for a two-hour Saturday Night Live sketch that skims every surface.Stone still cannot fathom how Bush won four huge elections, thrice bested the man universally acknowledged to be the country’s best debater in 2000 and inspired millions in (to cite a few examples) his speech atop the rubble at the World Trade Center, his Convention address in 2004 and in his second inaugural in 2005. Astonishing but true: Stone simply skips over all of these signature moments because they don’t fit Stone’s one joke about a bumbler who drifted to the top and destroyed the world.
To put it another way: the film does not show the courageous choice to launch the Surge and the way it succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, but does show the pretzel-choking incident, during which the president is shown wearing a novelty T-shirt with a dog on it.
Except for (perhaps) a scene in which Bush is shown breaking down and praying for salvation, there is not a single moment that shows any reason why anyone would support such an imbecile; in its determined omissions, it’s a bigger insult to the 62 million who voted for Bush than to the man himself.”
— Kyle Smith, on another piece of Hollywood tripe that'll never see a dime from me, or Pajamas Media
On his own site, Mr. Smith adds:Stone served in Vietnam and says, “I did not like Nixon. I suffered, like many people suffered under him, in Vietnam.” OK! Except, according to this extremely detailed fansite, Stone served in Vietnam in 1967-1968. MSN’s Encarta Encyclopedia agrees that Stone served from 1967-68. That means his suffering–all of it–was under Lyndon Johnson."
Who, I might add, was a Democrat. My favorite Dem, actually: he'd take his pants off - in public!
You could, you know, fill a two hour documentary of Bush that would be an insult to the 62 million who voted for him. Stone's depiction didn't make him give himself away over and over with blunderbuss speeches that a drunken vagrant would have been embarrassed to have uttered.
ReplyDeleteI won't watch Stone's film either. No need. Not when there's Youtube footage of the real thing. And the surge is a fix five years too late for a colossal initial mistake, just as all 9-11 is a result of Condi being unable to assess the risk of fuel-laden passenger jets used as weapons.
You love calling liberals and whatever brainwashed cultists for preferring a cogent candidate who has an actual plan that addresses the American heartland, instead of rewarding apparatchiks. Maybe they are just able to see how bad eight years of Bush has been to them. Radical notion, I know.
Berko, you know as well as I do you don't understand Bush either. Our biggest difference is I'll go even further and say (again) you also don't understand America - otherwise you would see why the country chose him over Al Gore AND John Kerry who were, in theory, "smarter".
ReplyDeleteAnd if Condi is so dumb, explain why Clinton didn't catch bin Laden when Osama was having a field day at our expense and openly laughing in Bubba's face. Oh yea, that married feminist with a daughter was too busy sticking his cigars into chubby interns a third his age - making everything that came afterwards possible. Shows you what the "brilliance" you so admire can get you.
And finally, since your "cogent" candidate is a lying socialist who's on record as never having done anything for anyone who wasn't a criminal - and he's putting his foot in it daily, I'll use this pre-election moment to teach your too-smug ass one of the most important lessons of Western Democracy and American baseball:
Baby, it ain't over 'till it's over.
P.S.
I'll be expecting an apology for sticking your nose where it don't belong (that would be OUR election) when this is over.
Maybe they identified with the dumber candidate. Given everything that has gone wrong with their choice, that is more plausible than the notion that they accurately saw him as able to deliver the government that America needs.
ReplyDeleteI guess Bubba didn't have an intelligence report that told him the specific M.O. that bin Laden's operatives would employ in attaching the homeland. He didn't have anything as disastrous as that happen on his watch - which isn't surprising.
Islamic (or other) terrorists running amok on the world stage is something that any US president would have far less control over and I've never blamed Bush for being unable to win a War on Terror; just for imagining he could. A smarter man would have seen that.
If you were paying attention, you'd see that I haven't endorsed either McCain or Obama (not that, as you rightly point out, I could). My comments extend to what I perceive as a sustained attack on one of those candidates, without acknowledgement of their strengths. Indeed, the point you most emphasise in your posts, about him being an empty suit cult leader type with no real policies has been shot to hell by the actual debates (unless Michelle is hiding under the desk and googling the answers)
On your postscript: I believe I've addressed this point frequently in the past but here goes -
1) Unless the US adopts an isolationist foreign policy (yes please), its actions affect the rest of the free world. It is therefore of vital interest how informed the American voting public are and the calibre of their leadership aspirants. Whether we like it or not.
2) If you can find my country on the map, criticise it and its leader all you want. I don't even care that the underlining premise of point one - that we have far less effect on global affairs than 'the last remaining superpower' - is incontrovertible. It's a free country.
3) When it's over, my comments that McCain is a decent man once again in a bad patch of history (both times the fault of GWB) and Obama is a fully clued-up 'man with a plan' who deserved the Democrat nomination, if nothing else, will stand. But if I ever uncover any evidence anywhere that Bush is a better president than I've given him credit for, I'll rush to your page with an apology. Pretty safe on that one though, smug bastard or not.
Or maybe he was faced with a dumber - more capable of lying - Democratic opposition. They were never happy about their loss to him and sabotaged, or lied about, every move he made.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yea, Bubba did know what was up: the World Trade Tower was first attacked in 1991. (Berko, you really must stop this and try and learn a few things. I'd be glad to teach you: this bullshit line of yours gets really old.)
Bush is winning the War On Terror - didn't you hear? Their websites just went down, in mass, today. You've really got to try and keep up.
Read my post on Barack's main support:
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-and-radicals-here-we-go-again.html
That's his "strength", Berko - he has no true accomplishments to point to.
You can be so naive:
1) The U.S., partially born out of the struggles between England, France, and Spain, has never been isolationist - it's been impossible, from day one, for us to be left alone - or to be considered on our own. That's not our fault, and to blame us is merely to place us in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation, which we - always alone - have to try and live with. You (with your bleeding heart) should be more sympathetic to such a predicament: we are one of the world's youngest democracies. Trying to get us to do things as you see it - when our predicament isn't yours - is unnecessary, unwanted, immature, and foolish.
2) I have no interest in criticizing your country or it's leader - Americans hardly care you're there - we have our own thing and it's more than enough for us to handle.
3) I never said you were all bad, and I'll be waiting - if BO gets in. I'm pretty sure he'll wreck the joint, if that happens. It's all his kind knows. Check out that link, above, to see what I mean.