October 1, 2006
Stone Cold LeftistBy D.K. Venable
The headline blasted out last Thursday.
Film Oliver Stone has an indisputable colorful past with an impressive portfolio of accomplishments in film and an admirable list of experiences — the least of which is certainly not his military service in wartime for his country.
It stands to reason that what he has to say deals directly with his personal experiences and not some carefully calculated appeasement to a media moment — sometimes at least.
In recent months, many have wondered at the filmmaker's surprising handling of the subject for his latest film,�World Trade Center, given that he is most famous for his leftist slant on various subjects, including the Vietnam War. Stone was true to his craft, which is the telling of a good story.� I have seen very little of his film work that was not at the top quality, so this one was no surprise.� A story can be told very well and be extremely entertaining no matter what point of view is depicted.
Oliver Stone is, after all, a member of the entertainment industry — even though the media and far too many citizens think that this alone qualifies as some exclusive kind of political, historical expertise.� In his own words, Stone has denied such a rolerole.
It would be nice if former president Clinton could be as honest ("I tried, they didn't") in his analysis of current and past policy decisions and his own understanding and personal handling of history.
Unfortunately, Mr. Stone, for all his honesty about his craft, didn't let that honesty stop him from following in the footsteps of so many other American entertainers as he lambasted America and the current administration while on foreign soil.� San Sebastian, Spain, the site of the San Sebastian International Film Festival, was the venue where Stone chose to tell the world that he is 'ashamed for my country' over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of Sept.11.
This little media performance no doubt cemented Stone's continuing 'member in good standing' status with the rest of the Hollywood Left.� It makes perfect sense to the liberal mentality to attack America and her president while before the cameras and pens of foreign journalists — never mind that the real enemy to the world Mr. Stone shows such concern for can only be helped by what he is saying.�From the same San Sebastian interview,
Newsflash, Oliver: the world isn't 'convulsing' in the grip of 9/11 — America just woke up and answered the knock on the door.� That would have been a great speech for a character in one of your dramatizations of history, entertaining even — but it falls a little short as an accurate commentary on foreign policy.
As the display of his gross ignorance continued, Stone also had this to say.
Okay, so now we're back to the Clinton presidency — 10 years, (or more) ago.� At that time (I must assume) we were putting all our energy into things that mattered.� (Like how to undo the disgrace to America from a leader who couldn't seem to keep his pants zipped.) That president and his administration could not be bothered with the terrorist attacks on American citizens that had already happened and would continue to happen for years to come.� Is that where the Bush presidency finds itself, according to the Stone accusation?� Bush would be doing a grand job if he just weren't 'fighting wars with others'?
And if he weren't, what would he be doing with all those misguided 'others' who continued to attack us in our own country?� Even Bill Clinton keeps reminding us that he lobbed missiles and he 'tried' to capture or kill the real bad guy behind the terrorist attacks and their future threats.� It is all so confusing to a simple mind not educated in the field of entertainment and drama to the extent that the great Oliver Stone is.
Getting back to the present, Stone wasn't finished yet.
Excuse me, I hate to keep interrupting all this obvious intelligence, but really, 'terrorism can be lived with'?� We should have chosen to 'live with' extremists crawling all over America, flying planes into buildings and blowing things up whenever they wanted?� We could have 'managed' that, Mr. Stone?
In his defense, Stone does reject the conspiracy theorists' allegations that we attacked our own country and killed three thousand Americans on 911.� No, he doesn't believe that, but he did say that the 'real conspiracy came after.'
Well, with 'all these books coming out' I'm sure Mr. Stone will have a wealth of 'history' to research, interpret, and dramatize.� I suspect we will be entertained at some point in the future with his interpretation of the real dramatic history behind America's disgrace.
Perhaps he can call on Mr. Clinton to fill in any missing details with his version of the Path To 911 — the untold Clinton legacy and all.
On that 'hijacked policy' that sent us into Iraq, I would advise that Stone get a front row seat in what's left of the proceedings against Saddam Hussein, so that he can collect those historical notes first hand.� Let's see, there was the 'death' and 'poverty' of the Iraqi people under Saddam Hussein — not to mention the weapons programs that were up and running before the 'neo—cabal' messed up Hussein's sand box.� Could we have 'lived with' the results of leaving that alone, Mr. Stone?
As a final show of his intense understanding of the human condition, he continued.
No fanatics existed anywhere in the world before we 'overreacted' to 911?� Is that what he meant?� Those guys in the planes, then, they were just out for a leisurely Tuesday morning, suicide adventure in our busy skies?� Where was Clinton when we needed him?� I'm sure he would have 'tried' to talk them out of it — right before the planes hit the buildings.
While this might have been a futile exercise in media reality, it does make one wonder why the irresponsible actions of some all too often add up to the very real polarizing effects splitting American resolve right down the middle, and thus resulting in a dangerous exercise in futility when it comes to solving real problems and defending against real enemies.
Ee did have a 'leadership that was more mature' 5 years ago — at the very least in comparison to the preceding one.� The truth will come out as time goes on and history is accurately depicted, with all the drama intact, through the interpretations of the winning side and not though the eyes of a self—defeatist, hate America point of view.�