Stoning Dubya

I spent the past couple of days hanging out with Vincent Bugliosi who wants Bush killed for his crimes, following a fair trial of course, and who openly pushes the supposed need for retribution while disclaiming much interest in deterrence or restoration. Then I watched Oliver Stone's new movie, "W," which depicts Bush as a poor, sad fool who's just been trying his hardest to please his daddy all these years. If I have to choose, I'm on Stone's side.

I think Bush has been far more sadistic and cynical than Stone's depiction, but I think Stone's work opposes the spread of sadism and cynicism in his audience, while Bugliosi plays to and encourages both. At the same time, I think Bugliosi is doing more good for the world than Stone, because Stone is simply making movies, while Bugliosi is attempting to prosecute Bush for his crimes. The need to prosecute Bush, to my mind, has nothing to do with whether or not I like the man. He needs to be punished in order to deter future presidents from committing similar abuses. Is that too abstract a motivation to build a popular movement around? Is it necessary to play on people's hatred for Bush in order to achieve deterrent justice? I'm not so sure: I watched Bugliosi win standing ovations the other night but face cold silence and only a handful of nodding heads when he advocated retribution.

Now, don't get me wrong, Stone does not make Bush look good. He makes his presidency look like a catastrophe. When you see Stone on Charlie Rose and other television shows pretending he didn't make an anti-Bush movie, Stone is apparently lying, presumably in the belief that it will sell more tickets. He made an anti-Bush movie as he was morally obliged to do, and he made a good one. But it has flaws. It's a simpler story than the real one, because of its time limitation and its focus on its main character. We are left believing that the entire motivation to run for president came from Bush with maybe just the slightest nudge from Karl Rove, and that the whole idea to attack Iraq was Bush's. There's a good scene in which Cheney lays out his plan for conquering the whole Middle East, but the Project for a New American Century makes no appearance in the film. The Iraq War is supposed to have sprung full grown from the feeble brain of an infantile son still angry about his father's reelection defeat.

And yet, Stone would have us believe that Bush actually believed in the existence of the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq and was never aware of lying about them, and that his top staff believed their own lies and concluded after the invasion that Saddam Hussein had pretended to have weapons. This is absurd, given Hussein's pre-war declarations of the exact truth about the weapons: that he did not have any, and given what we know about Bush -- some of which many people will learn for the first time from this film. For example, Bush's suggestion to Tony Blair that they could fly a US plane falsely painted in UN colors over Iraq to try to get it shot at and create an excuse for war was made in the White House on January 31, 2003. In this film it's made in Crawford, Texas, but at least it's made. We also see the planning for the invasion, from which Bush and his advisors expect very few casualties. None of this makes sense while clinging to the idea that Bush actually believed his own lies about the weapons. Of course, Bush could have believed in some of the weapons while lying about others, and while lying about Iraq being an imminent threat to the United States. He could have believed that somehow merely possessing weapons constituted a justification for war. But the evidence in reality and in the movie is strong that he did not believe his own weapons lies. He expected few casualties. He wanted to provoke an attack. And he said after the invasion that it didn't make any difference whether there were weapons or not. Of course we also know of widespread efforts in the Bush administration to distort and even forge evidence to support a war.

Stone's movie is even less accurate in its depiction of George Bush, Sr., painting him as wise, decent, good, and full of integrity. This is a man who ran all sorts of murderous operations out of the CIA, who cut a deal with Iran to get Reagan elected, who took part in the Iran-Contra crimes, who blatantly lied us into the first Gulf War, etc. Stone could have made him look sane by comparison with his son without cleaning him up beyond recognition.

At the theater where I watched "W," they showed a preview first of another movie: "Frost / Nixon" ( http://www.frostnixon.net ), which is about an attempt to hold Richard Nixon accountable for his crimes through the court of public opinion. That was decidedly not sufficient. The result of not holding him, or Reagan and Bush Sr., accountable in real courts was Dubya. The result of not holding Dubya accountable in a real court would be far worse. And we have a crazier, stupider, meaner candidate than Bush running right now for the position of vice president on a ticket with an old man in bad health.

I'd rather see him rot in a SuperMax.

Wife thought it sucked. MIL said it made her very sad to see that they (Bush, Cheney, crew) could have done that. FIL noncommittal, nephew liked it, I thought it was too easy on Dubya, making him out to be an aw-shucks kind of a guy when he's actually a conniving, spoiled, asshole rich boy--which Stone did show in the flick, but which didn't seem to be the real focus, as you said.

Mass murder is a crime for which I believe death is the suitable penalty. Mass murder, destroying the republic, looting the treasury, destroying other countries, jeopardizing the future of billions of people, can only be punished by forfeiting one's life. This applies to all of the conspirators, not just Dubya.

Sorry. I've run out of compassion for tyrants.

who's just been trying his hardest to please his daddy all these years"

This is the problem with people with psychopathic personality disorders - they fool people into thinking that they are poor, sad whatevers. They are charming and manipulative and are capable of making someone feel like they are important but that person is out of sight, out of mind for them. The reality is that they are less capable of feeling empathy (if at all) than people who are not psychopaths and they think that rules and ethics apply to other people but not to them. The only things that cause them to change their behavior is the threat of loss of money or power. The problem is that the rest of the world views them through the lens of someone who HAS morals, HAS ethics, IS capable of empathizing and so the rest of the world gives them the benefit of the doubt or looks for explanations for their behavior that fit within those socially accepted parameters. That is a fundamental error. When it comes to Bush and Cheney (and too many others to mention) the most important thing to remember is that they are NOT LIKE US. They really, really, really DON'T CARE. They are not capable of caring. Appealing to them by talking about how many people will suffer makes absolutely no difference.

There are plenty of people who spend all their adult lives trying to please their daddies - those who are not psychopaths do it in far more socially constructive ways.

they really, really do not care. and they never will.

You have captured in your brief but concise summary, precisely the psychological dynamics at work of the individual, AND his enablers.. (all of the ptb, as well as our culture/society)

There's no fucking way I would see this movie, even for free, but interesting review.

Agreed, this review gives me a feel for this movie, but I still stand by my stance that I will never ever see this movie. Just like I will never see any of those 9/11 propaganda movies. Saves room in the brain for more truth.

I couldn't even read the review! But I figured the author should get some credit for stomaching the movie!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

to bad this movie was`t made earlier in bush`s reign. the man is a soulless being who uses his power to destroy those who he deems unworthy. i feel sorry for his family and i feel sorry for the world. we both enabled him to do what he did.

i`m praying that the american people are so desperate for change that they will vote for their salvation and elect two men who have compassion for mankind.

Not Bush..Cheney (of course all the significant Neo-Cons Rumsfeld horror monster to Wolfo-humiliated-witz)??!!

One reviewer put it Stone says W "MEANT WELL" disgusting. Do people have to be reminded of the tens of thousands of maimed, going on 4500 soldiers dead..their families who suffered these losses. OBSCENE is what you are Stone. Iraqis ..lkilled not just Saddam but their culture including Ancient Near East artifacts deliberately destroyed.
To this day without basic needs huge unemployment, the displaced 4 million. Disaster reduced to this innocuous vapid idiocy. But this is not __history, Stone. Casting is absurd too.


He is going for box office obviously..h o p e//////////it flop$$$$

You did describe his true history well.

That tells youStone is going for getting in tight with producers$$$$$$$$$$$.

Brolin a fine actor.. huge unreality , W never was handsome his look of empty soulessness
is not replicated. Cannot think of any who could replicate that reality.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We can't be a nation of laws again until we do.

As for stoning the former Prez, that's perhaps too humane.

Just let him rot in a supermax for the rest of his life.

but it's VERY IMPORTANT to hold Bush accountable, and for precisely the reason Bugliosi says--as a deterrant to future would-be tyrants. Life imprisonment would serve the purpose just as well as the death penalty.

what was sown in the 70's under nixon, and, considering Watergate was about stealing evidence the Dems had of nixon's complicity in JFK's assassination, what was sown in the 60's, too.

artsy apologetics are wrong! Wrong time, wrong place--ENOUGH!

But you got Palin pegged.

NoFederales

Just throw him in jail for life and take his money to put make reparations!

so will be listening intently to what he says.

I'll be fascinated to see "W"-I always like Stone's work but I think there is a reason he takes a fairly mild approach.

"fair and balanced". Hilarious right-back-atcha at Faux. I can't wait to get my hands on a copy.

I've followed Bugliosi closely over the years and totally agree with him...

I want to see images of bunkerboy just like mussolini - hanging upside down at the end of a rope...or as a MINIMUM, in prison for the rest of his life...

Right next to the Yugoslav and Rwandan war criminals.

bush has committed horriffic acts against memebers of this nation and nations abroad. If there were any justice in the world he would be sent to the Hauge and if found guilty for crimes he should be hung until dead.

I do not believe in the death penalty, I be in justice.

The part where the reporter asks Bush, "After 9/11, have you made any mistakes in your administration?" I had to go back and listen to that as it actually happened because I did not remember the "After 9/11" part. In the film I felt like Stone added that because it blames 9/11 on Bush. When I heard the reporter ask the question, it sounds like the reporter blames Bush for 9/11 and that's why he's asking it. I think Stone added that because we all missed that part. Bush flubs on the question because he got it.

There are also parts in the movie where you are asking "did that really happen that way?" The part where they are walking around the Crawford Ranch (stage set) is one, discussing Iraq and getting lost. I known there were quotes taken out of context. The "Texas/Tennessee Won't get fooled again..." quote for example. I think Stone does this so we are left asking at the end of the film, "Did the last 8 years really happen? How could we have been so duped?" Stone also conveys the fact that Bush has been duping people his whole life. The Connecticut fratboy cum Texas wildcat out Texasing Texas.

Hey, the punishment has to fit the crime, right?

I didn't think that he encouraged sadism or cynicism. It's true that his hatred for Bush was transparent. But so what? I'm not about to criticize someone for hating George W. Bush. I will admit that his hatred makes him sound a little less objective, but still I agreed with just about all his positions and thought it was a very well reasoned book. I don't recall him saying that Bush should be put to death, however -- after a fair trial or not.

I am against the death penalty under any circumstance, even for extreme cases such as Bush's crimes. But I firmly believe it is IMPERATIVE that we prosecute Bush and the entire cabal.

Bugliosi just wrote another book supporting the "Oswald's Magic Bullet did it alone" theory.

Stone has gone Disney.

Sorry, but this is a false choice and the poster knows it.

I'll stick with Naomi Klein's depiction: PNAC knows exactly what they're doing, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.

The Nazis were hanged in Nuremberg for committing a war of aggression.

The same should do to Bush for doing the same. As well as Cheney and the rest of their respective ilk.

I rather stone Bush for murdering people on both sides rather than to see Oliver Stone's crappy film.