Oliver Stone and " W " Movie for October 2008 Release

[The Rover]

CANNES -- Josh Brolin has a vice president.

Richard Dreyfuss could soon make the trip to Oliver Stone's White House, entering final negotiations to play Dick Cheney in the provcateur director's upcoming "W."

The role is the last major position in the Bush administration to be filled; the West Wing is already occupied by the likes of Brolin (President Bush) Thandie Newton (Condoleezza Rice) and Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush).

The 60-year-old Dreyfuss has never played a U.S. leader, but has had a few related roles. He starred as an opposition senator to Michael Douglas' commander in chief in 1995's "The American President," as Alexander Haig in a television movie about Ronald Reagan and played the president of a banana republic in the 1980s comedy "Moon Over Parador."

The QED-produced "W," which has been granted a waiver by SAG, begins shooting this month in Shreveport, La. QED has been selling territorial rights at Cannes' Marche du Film, with the idea that the movie will be released in October, before Americans elect a new president. A DVD release will follow in January timed to Bush leaving office.

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

Po Poo on Oliver Stone......

Isn't / Wasn't the Clinton White House Good Enough to make a Movie out of ? ? ?

Guess Not ! ! !

[Pb Derigable]

you shouldn;t have a major motion picture about a sitting president. it's just disrepects the office. and the fact he is trying to get this done by nov has some political means by it. or even a living president. he sayis it's going top be fair, (Yeah lol) but jsut like other anti american films, it will bombed just like the last two micheal moore films and a few movies from the last 6 months.

Oliver stone Any given sunday sucked

[Electrophile]

You couldn't pay me to watch this. The last Oliver Stone movie I watched was Born On The Fourth of July.

[Big Klu]

Obviously this movie will be a crapfest of epic proportions.

Political intentions aside.....freaking Josh Brolin is who you're counting on to carry the whole thing??

you shouldn;t have a major motion picture about a sitting president. it's just disrepects the office. and the fact he is trying to get this done by nov has some political means by it. or even a living president. he sayis it's going top be fair, (Yeah lol) but jsut like other anti american films, it will bombed just like the last two micheal moore films and a few movies from the last 6 months.

And of course being anti-Bush does not make one an anti-american. According to that logic, anti-clintonites would also be anti-american. The president is not America.

[DRUNK]

And of course being anti-Bush does not make one an anti-american. According to that logic, anti-clintonites would also be anti-american. The president is not America.

Remember, no one called Bill Clinton things like "satan, Hitler reincarnated, complete idiot, retarded, evil etc". Calling the President things that extreme, especially when they are not justified(they aren't), is bordering on treason.

No matter what Bush has or hasn't done, there is no excuse for a lot of the things people have said and done.

[Rock Action]

Oh brother. Here's another bit of subliminal propaganda I'll pass on.

Besides, Frank Caliendo should have portrayed Bush. He'd be more presentable as a likeness of the Prez when they recordify the movie.

[Cactus]

you shouldn;t have a major motion picture about a sitting president. it's just disrepects the office. and the fact he is trying to get this done by nov has some political means by it. or even a living president. he sayis it's going top be fair, (Yeah lol) but jsut like other anti american films, it will bombed just like the last two micheal moore films and a few movies from the last 6 months.

Americans are always going on about 'first amendment rights'. Why doesn't this apply to this film? Why is something anti-American just because someone doesn't agree fully with the government's policy?

If you think Michael Moore's films 'bombed', either critically or commercially you are dead wrong. Look up the figures for the highest grossing documentaries in history and see how many Moore has in the top 5.

[Big Klu]

Remember, no one called Bill Clinton things like "satan, Hitler reincarnated, complete idiot, retarded, evil etc". Calling the President things that extreme, especially when they are not justified(they aren't), is bordering on treason.

No matter what Bush has or hasn't done, there is no excuse for a lot of the things people have said and done.

Name calling doesn't border on treason, nor should it... considering America's supposedly sacred attitudes towards The Freedom of Speech. What people have done would certainly be a matter of debate. Have any specifics in mind?

[LibertarianFool]

Name calling doesn't border on treason, nor should it... considering America's supposedly sacred attitudes towards The Freedom of Speech. What people have done would certainly be a matter of debate. Have any specifics in mind?

I agree.

Also, this movie is just going to be another liberal propaganda piece. Something that has already been said.

That Oliver Stone!

[zepyep]

Hi all,

Americans are always going on about 'first amendment rights'. Why doesn't this apply to this film? Why is something anti-American just because someone doesn't agree fully with the government's policy?

If you think Michael Moore's films 'bombed', either critically or commercially you are dead wrong. Look up the figures for the highest grossing documentaries in history and see how many Moore has in the top 5.

Who?

So why didn't Senator Kennedy go to Cuba for his health care?

Roger&me.

[DRUNK]

Name calling doesn't border on treason, nor should it... considering America's supposedly sacred attitudes towards The Freedom of Speech. What people have done would certainly be a matter of debate. Have any specifics in mind?

Well, it's more like the the results of their words. True, freedom of speech of a great thing, and everyone should be able to express themselves, but there is an unspoken limit on that, which people haven't understood or recognized. They just go ahead and say whatever they want without considering the potential damage which might occur.

People in this country have crippled the war effort. We can debate the legitimacy and the effects of the war all day long, but we wouldn't get very far if stuck on that.

People oppose the war without even understanding why they oppose it, a lot of the time. The media, from nearly day one, started bashing Bush and the war, relentlessly. Highlighting all of the extreme liberal, super biased opponents, and never giving an inch for any of the positive which may or might have happened. The media is responsible for what people think. Unfortunately, most of the people get most of their information from mass media sources.

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

The American people, because of their isolation, freedom, and quality of life, have a severe lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have. Unfortunately, they don't recognize, that in order to maintain their current way of life and standard of living, the nation must be aggressive around the world. The USA must maintain, through any means necessary, or we can all say goodbye to "the goodtimes". And these are the goodtimes, whether you can believe so or not.

Because of all the opposition, the government and military have basically been put in handcuffs, with the result being both forced to take actions, which are so ridiculously politically correct, that nothing truly effective can be accomplished. And I am speaking about the war primarily.

[Cactus]

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

What is your definition of 'won'?

[DRUNK]

I don't have a definition, but I have some ideas.

There are strong similarities between how we conduct the war, and how a kindergarten teacher instructs and disciplines students.

We are too nice. This is the problem of the politically correct western world. That's the kind of war you fight when there is no support from the people, and you're worried about how everyone else thinks.

If we would have gone to Iraq, and were absolutely brutal, the people would have submitted very early on, and then we could have done whatever we wanted in terms of rebuilding.

Instead we've been playing Mr. Nice guy, and it hasn't been worth it.

Watch the movie Apocalypse Now. Listen to Marlon Brando's part. He explains it.

I found that movie shockingly real after coming back from war.

[Cactus]

But don't you think that approach leads to more collateral damage?

If we would have gone to Iraq, and were absolutely brutal, the people would have submitted very early on, and then we could have done whatever we wanted in terms of rebuilding.

What do you think is the actual problem? I mean, it seems as though you are saying "we've been too nice, the Iraqis are taking advantage". But isn't the problem 'the al-Quaeda' and Iran? Aren't they the ones who are leading the insurgency? So how would 'the people' submitting have helped?

I'm also a little concerned about your 'whatever we wanted in terms of rebuilding' remark. I didn't think that we went to that country to re-build it how we wanted, I thought we went there to remove a dictator who at the time appeared to pose a threat to the world. What right do we have to go in there and rebuild 'how we want'?

[Big Klu]

Well, it's more like the the results of their words. True, freedom of speech of a great thing, and everyone should be able to express themselves, but there is an unspoken limit on that, which people haven't understood or recognized. They just go ahead and say whatever they want without considering the potential damage which might occur.

Unspoken limit? Potential damage? Not directly compelling reasons on their own....actually, quite paranoid if viewed objectively.

People in this country have crippled the war effort. We can debate the legitimacy and the effects of the war all day long, but we wouldn't get very far if stuck on that.

How have people in this country crippled the war effort? Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and 5 years in (rivaling WW2) is what has been invested so far. I understand your general vibe, but if you think that every war before 'Nam was universally backed by Americans, you haven't read much history.

People oppose the war without even understanding why they oppose it, a lot of the time. The media, from nearly day one, started bashing Bush and the war, relentlessly. Highlighting all of the extreme liberal, super biased opponents, and never giving an inch for any of the positive which may or might have happened. The media is responsible for what people think. Unfortunately, most of the people get most of their information from mass media sources.

We haven't found WMD, thus the rationale for war has gone from defensive to preemptive. Preemptive wars don't have a good track record historically. Hitler used it twice, against Poland and Russia. We used it in Vietnam.

BTW, war is bad because people die.

It's pretty easy to oppose war, and at which time it when that is not the prevailing viewpoint of society.... something must have seriously fucked it up.

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

American support on the other side of the world has jack to do with IED's and Shiite/Sunni relations.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

I would like an AP/Reuters quality cite for this. It sounds interesting.

The American people, because of their isolation, freedom, and quality of life, have a severe lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have. Unfortunately, they don't recognize, that in order to maintain their current way of life and standard of living, the nation must be aggressive around the world. The USA must maintain, through any means necessary, or we can all say goodbye to "the goodtimes". And these are the goodtimes, whether you can believe so or not.

I would argue that America's cultural isolation has led to a breakdown of communication and understanding with the outside world. Acting like WW2 somehow ordained the USA as the power in the world has long eroded away in the world, if it ever existed at all. Japan almost surpassed us in the 80's and China is at the cusp of doing so now. Chinese loans now pay for the Iraq War.

And of course, everyone has their own story to tell. Even seemingly in the best of times, nothing is completely kosher. Read Zinn's Peoples History of the United States for some sense of perspective.

Because of all the opposition, the government and military have basically been put in handcuffs, with the result being both forced to take actions, which are so ridiculously politically correct, that nothing truly effective can be accomplished. And I am speaking about the war primarily.

Need specific examples here. It may feel right, but is it correct when you actually think about it?

[DRUNK]

But don't you think that approach leads to more collateral damage?

What do you think is the actual problem? I mean, it seems as though you are saying "we've been too nice, the Iraqis are taking advantage". But isn't the problem 'the al-Quaeda' and Iran? Aren't they the ones who are leading the insurgency? So how would 'the people' submitting have helped?

I'm also a little concerned about your 'whatever we wanted in terms of rebuilding' remark. I didn't think that we went to that country to re-build it how we wanted, I thought we went there to remove a dictator who at the time appeared to pose a threat to the world. What right do we have to go in there and rebuild 'how we want'?

Well, I think it might lead to less total collateral damage because an initial level of destruction resulting in complete submission would have created a much more shortened war.

Well, the problem is everything you mentioned. The Iraqi's don't respect us and think we are weak. At the same time, Al Qeada in Iraq, and Iran, have been permitted to do what they have done because we didn't set the standard in the beginning.

The people submitting would have helped 100% because the people support the insurgency, whether because they believe in it, they are getting paid too, or they are intimidated into it. If the insurgency lost the support of the people, it would die. These aren't organized armies we are dealing with. The insurgents are reliant on the local people for food, shelter, intelligence, money etc. In Iran's case, they fund, train, and provided weapons for the Shia insurgency, but it is still the Shia's carrying out the act for the most part.

Well, I don't think you can do anything but to rebuild. We aren't rebuilding it our way though, we are rebuilding it their way, which is basically kind of fixing the things that already exist over there, or replacing it all. We came there and removed the regime, and it would be useless if we didn't rebuild and make things better. Then the situation would turn back into the one we removed.

[Cactus]

The people submitting would have helped 100% because the people support the insurgency, whether because they believe in it, they are getting paid too, or they are intimidated into it. If the insurgency lost the support of the people, it would die. These aren't organized armies we are dealing with. The insurgents are reliant on the local people for food, shelter, intelligence, money etc. In Iran's case, they fund, train, and provided weapons for the Shia insurgency, but it is still the Shia's carrying out the act for the most part.

I'm not so sure about that - it seems like you are saying the Iraqis need to fear more. But don't you think that fear of the US forces is going to make some of them more likely to help the insurgents, and those who do help will be even more committed to the insurgency?

[DRUNK]

Unspoken limit? Potential damage? Not directly compelling reasons on their own....actually, quite paranoid if viewed objectively.

Freedom of speech gets hijacked all the time and is used for far more destructive reasons than the potential oppression it was designed to prevent. The original intention of freedom of speech certainly isn't what it has become. There is a certain tact, manners, and common decency that have been lost.

How have people in this country crippled the war effort? Billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and 5 years in (rivaling WW2) is what has been invested so far. I understand your general vibe, but if you think that every war before 'Nam was universally backed by Americans, you haven't read much history.

The people in the country have limited America's war fighting potential by being too critical. Instead of fighting and winning decisive wars by brute force, we have settled for political wars, fought around trying to appease a public and western world that doesn't have the stomach for war. We have been able to continue the fight, but not as effectively as it is possible.

I don't think any war is universally backed by anyone, but it is impossible to compare this war to others. In other times, there were no internet, no or little TV, and everything was just different. People didn't have the opportunity to display their self expression or opinions on such a large scale, so the damage was controlled. Without going into it all, do you know what I'm saying?

We haven't found WMD, thus the rationale for war has gone from defensive to preemptive. Preemptive wars don't have a good track record historically. Hitler used it twice, against Poland and Russia. We used it in Vietnam.

The WMD rationale was a mistake. That should not have been the sole reason. But, and I hope you know this, most of the world's intelligence agencies believed this information to be correct. Oh well, it wasn't. But when your opponent knows your move 6 months before, he has enough time to adjust. No one will ever know what really went on with the WMD situation. But, we know they had them and had produced them.

Preemptive warfare could have worked out for Hitler, but that's a whole other topic. Germany could have won the war many different ways. As far as Vietnam goes, I don't know enough about it to comment thoroughly, but I get your point.

BTW, war is bad because people die.

It's pretty easy to oppose war, and at which time it when that is not the prevailing viewpoint of society.... something must have seriously fucked it up.

I disagree with that. Survival always wins. The key is recognizing survival. Which in this case, is our quality of life. Unfortunately, people don't recognize that this is a survival issue. If it isn't fought for, then of course it won't survive.

American support on the other side of the world has jack to do with IED's and Shiite/Sunni relations.

Don't really understand the comment.

I would like an AP/Reuters quality cite for this. It sounds interesting.

I don't have one. It's just an idea, but I can support with some "make sense" speculation.

I would argue that America's cultural isolation has led to a breakdown of communication and understanding with the outside world. Acting like WW2 somehow ordained the USA as the power in the world has long eroded away in the world, if it ever existed at all. Japan almost surpassed us in the 80's and China is at the cusp of doing so now. Chinese loans now pay for the Iraq War.

You are correct in the first sentence. We are and have been the most powerful country in the world. We have the greatest GDP, the most funded and technologically advanced military, hell, even English has basically become the international language. But, our time is almost over, and what we see now, is us trying to prevent that. China is coming, and coming fast. I'll give you one reason: What is one of the best ways to slow this transition? China's economy slowing down. What is the best way to slow their economy down? Raise the price of oil. We can afford to live with it. We are already established. Deprive China of oil, and their industrial revolution, which is going on now, will slow down. That buys us more time. What is the best way to raise oil prices? Create instability in the middle east. What is the best way to prevent China from creating a foothold in the middle east, or them marching in and taking it for themselves? Our presence there. Of course, this all gets wayy more complicated, and may sound crazy, but think about it.

And of course, everyone has their own story to tell. Even seemingly in the best of times, nothing is completely kosher. Read Zinn's Peoples History of the United States for some sense of perspective.

I'll check it out.

Need specific examples here. It may feel right, but is it correct when you actually think about it?

I gotta look at my post again because I can't see it now.

[DRUNK]

I'm not so sure about that - it seems like you are saying the Iraqis need to fear more. But don't you think that fear of the US forces is going to make some of them more likely to help the insurgents, and those who do help will be even more committed to the insurgency?

That way of thinking makes total sense, and that is probably why we are fighting the war like we are right now. But that is looking at it from the western world perspective. One would think that that what you described would be a human reaction, but it's actually not. These people are very different from us.

From what I have seen, when the Iraqi's were given reasons to be extremely fearful, they stopped supporting the insurgency.

They are used to fear, and it is really the only thing that can govern them effectively unfortunately.

[Big Klu]

Freedom of speech gets hijacked all the time and is used for far more destructive reasons than the potential oppression it was designed to prevent. The original intention of freedom of speech certainly isn't what it has become. There is a certain tact, manners, and common decency that have been lost.

What do you think was the original intention of Freedom of Speech?

Regulating free speech is obviously a dichotomy. Do you subscribe to the notion that it be only what is considered 'right'? History has shown that society's concept of 'right' and wrong is 'fluid'....and that has only occurred when people exercised the right (before it was considered a right at the time, of course ).

Again, I understand what you're going for...the difference is that I believe that the negative aspects of 'regulation' far outweigh the negative aspects of free speech. I'd rather live in this (USA) social environment than freaking China (ostensibly, being polar opposites).

The people in the country have limited America's war fighting potential by being too critical. Instead of fighting and winning decisive wars by brute force, we have settled for political wars, fought around trying to appease a public and western world that doesn't have the stomach for war. We have been able to continue the fight, but not as effectively as it is possible.

Again, try to be more specific.

Both Korea and Vietnam Wars could have led to all out warfare between the US and China/USSR, and that led to conflicts where there could not be decisive wars. With Iraq, how has public opinion limited military operations? At this point the war, it's an occupation. Unless you advocate a 'Nazi SS cleansing of the Eastern Front' type campaign (which well....is universally seen as a war crime) the whole nature of the situation precludes a kickass final blow, ala WW2. Theres no quicky answer to this complex conflict. War with Syria and Iran? That will make them like us? Respect us? Scooping off the top layer of govt. wont change the mindset of an already suspicious populace. Almost total annihilation is what it took for Germany and Japan to revert to a kinda peacenik nature. Yeah, its safe to assume WW3 is not something the world wants if thats what it would take.

And of course WW3 would lead to WW4....

I don't think any war is universally backed by anyone, but it is impossible to compare this war to others. In other times, there were no internet, no or little TV, and everything was just different. People didn't have the opportunity to display their self expression or opinions on such a large scale, so the damage was controlled. Without going into it all, do you know what I'm saying?

Sounds good, but its crap because...

John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts during the quasi-war w/ France.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War.

FDR did it again during WW2.

'Damage' was controlled with tactics we'd find reprehensible in China....but somehow it's groovyawesome over here?

The WMD rationale was a mistake. That should not have been the sole reason. But, and I hope you know this, most of the world's intelligence agencies believed this information to be correct. Oh well, it wasn't. But when your opponent knows your move 6 months before, he has enough time to adjust. No one will ever know what really went on with the WMD situation. But, we know they had them and had produced them.

Need a cite for that intel agencies statement. Somewhere I read that the majority of the agencies' intel had come from the Iraqi National Congress or Mossad...who obviously were heavily invested in some form or another with Iraq. Dont have a cite for that, but you could google for 'curveball', who was the primary 'informant' we used prior to the invasion. There were enough red-flags to conclude the majority of the info was bullshit. I think it was obvious at the time war was preferable to the Bush admin. than further 'boring' and anti-ego fulfilling weapon inspecting.

Preemptive warfare could have worked out for Hitler, but that's a whole other topic. Germany could have won the war many different ways. As far as Vietnam goes, I don't know enough about it to comment thoroughly, but I get your point.

Naw, preemptive warfare almost never wins wars. The resolve of a populace to fight a war where there was ...eh..possibly' a threat is way different than one who seeks vengeance after having been attacked first. Thats why we kicked unholy ass during WW2. If you read accounts of Japanese civilians, they had to be continually 'reminded' that America had forced them to attack first...and pretty much it was govt lies about what would happen with an American victory , wholesale rape and murder (....hey! like the Japanese army was doin!) that motivated them.

I disagree with that. Survival always wins. The key is recognizing survival. Which in this case, is our quality of life. Unfortunately, people don't recognize that this is a survival issue. If it isn't fought for, then of course it won't survive.

Lets see.....

- Destroy America with land invasion?

Fuck no, thats impossible. If Japans entire population had been militarized in WW2 (including old women and children), they would have been barely able to invade California, if they could get here in the first place....yay, only 47 states left!

- Destroy America with nukes?

Certainly doable. The whole world would hate you of course....not much benefit there in the long term.

- Get America to destroy itself?

Best scenario! Use blind paranoia and short term pleasures to bankrupt the country financially and spiritually, then just buy it all. Hell, place a bid on LockheedMartin before the 'invasion' to test the waters, ala Czechoslovakia 1938.

Don't really understand the comment.

American domestic support likely does not influence hatred between religious and ethnic divides in Iraq. 'Oh wow, theres wavering support way over in America! I wasn't going to use this bomb.....but now I have to... gleefully!.

I don't have one. It's just an idea, but I can support with some "make sense" speculation.

Lots of things can make sense before you contemplate the nuts and bolts of it.

You are correct in the first sentence. We are and have been the most powerful country in the world. We have the greatest GDP, the most funded and technologically advanced military, hell, even English has basically become the international language. But, our time is almost over, and what we see now, is us trying to prevent that. China is coming, and coming fast. I'll give you one reason: What is one of the best ways to slow this transition? China's economy slowing down. What is the best way to slow their economy down? Raise the price of oil. We can afford to live with it. We are already established. Deprive China of oil, and their industrial revolution, which is going on now, will slow down. That buys us more time. What is the best way to raise oil prices? Create instability in the middle east. What is the best way to prevent China from creating a foothold in the middle east, or them marching in and taking it for themselves? Our presence there. Of course, this all gets wayy more complicated, and may sound crazy, but think about it.

The IDF, man for man, is probably the best fighting force on the planet, while the PLA is easily the largest. We'd do good in battle where we set the rules, but I'd seriously doubt our flexibility to handle out-of-the-box scenarios at this point.

I have some issues with your 'combat China' tactics.

1. We don't control the price of oil (OPEC).

2. Slowing down China's economy would fuck ours up because at this point about 1/2 of America is already 'Made In China'.

3. China is already exploring alt sources of oil (Sudan).

4. China could call in their loans at any time and totally bone us.

I'll check it out.

Considering it paints a less-than-flattering view of American history (through the eyes of 'redskins' and 'niggers') I'd be surprised, frankly if you actually read it. It's probably one of those books that would violate some peoples concept of 'free speech', by its subversive nature and whatnot.

[Lake of Shadows]

you shouldn;t have a major motion picture about a sitting president. it's just disrepects the office. and the fact he is trying to get this done by nov has some political means by it. or even a living president. he sayis it's going top be fair, (Yeah lol) but jsut like other anti american films, it will bombed just like the last two micheal moore films and a few movies from the last 6 months.

A "major motion picture" about a sitting president probably isn't the greatest idea, even if it's intended to be a flag-waving gawd-he's-a-great-prez film and therefore wouldn't "disrespect the office" (actually, I think it would either way). As others have pointed out, a film about a president isn't ipso facto anti-American (or pro-American either.)

Of course it "has some political means by it" if you meant what I think you meant. That's not automatically a bad thing... and Duh-bee-yuh can't run again, so it's not like this will hurt his chances in the election.

Finally, one could make the argument that Duh-bee-yuh's actions, etc. have already disrespected the office more than any movie ever could.

Remember, no one called Bill Clinton things like "satan, Hitler reincarnated, complete idiot, retarded, evil etc". Calling the President things that extreme, especially when they are not justified(they aren't), is bordering on treason.

No matter what Bush has or hasn't done, there is no excuse for a lot of the things people have said and done.

No, they called him a lying cheating adulterer. I don't think Clinton gave folks too many reasons to consider him a complete idiot. Duh-bee-yuh... well... as far as I know he's not a cheating adulterer.

I don't think calling Bush any of the things you mentioned is that extreme or anywhere near 'bordering on treason'.

Well, it's more like the the results of their words. True, freedom of speech of a great thing, and everyone should be able to express themselves, but there is an unspoken limit on that, which people haven't understood or recognized. They just go ahead and say whatever they want without considering the potential damage which might occur.

People in this country have crippled the war effort. We can debate the legitimacy and the effects of the war all day long, but we wouldn't get very far if stuck on that.

People oppose the war without even understanding why they oppose it, a lot of the time. The media, from nearly day one, started bashing Bush and the war, relentlessly. Highlighting all of the extreme liberal, super biased opponents, and never giving an inch for any of the positive which may or might have happened. The media is responsible for what people think. Unfortunately, most of the people get most of their information from mass media sources.

Let's speed this up: If the general American public supported the war, we likely would have "won" by now, and the message that would have sent, would have likely quieted up many of the countries which currently oppose us.

Uh, where were you in 2002 and 2003? The media and the general American public DID support the war. People were quite gung-ho about it. It wasn't until it became obviously not a slam-dunk that a lot of people started questioning things and support started wavering.

I guess the American people can thank themselves for the high gas prices. If we had won a quick and devastating war in Iraq, the excuses that worldwide oil companies have used to increase prices, would shave certainly been unavailable.

and "excuses" is the key word there. The oil companies are also reporting record profits.

The American people, because of their isolation, freedom, and quality of life, have a severe lack of understanding or appreciation for what they have. Unfortunately, they don't recognize, that in order to maintain their current way of life and standard of living, the nation must be aggressive around the world. The USA must maintain, through any means necessary, or we can all say goodbye to "the goodtimes". And these are the goodtimes, whether you can believe so or not.

I actually agree with a little bit of what you say here. I agree that a lot of Americans don't really understand/appreciate what they have. I think a lot of folks take a lot of that for granted... and I'm guilty of that too sometimes.

Perhaps some of us don't think we should "be aggressive" around the world. I do not think we should ride rouoghshod over others just cuz we wanna drive gas-guzzling SUVs and eat at McDonalds.

I don't have a definition, but I have some ideas.

There are strong similarities between how we conduct the war, and how a kindergarten teacher instructs and disciplines students.

We are too nice. This is the problem of the politically correct western world. That's the kind of war you fight when there is no support from the people, and you're worried about how everyone else thinks.

If we would have gone to Iraq, and were absolutely brutal, the people would have submitted very early on, and then we could have done whatever we wanted in terms of rebuilding.

Instead we've been playing Mr. Nice guy, and it hasn't been worth it.

Watch the movie Apocalypse Now. Listen to Marlon Brando's part. He explains it.

I found that movie shockingly real after coming back from war.

Ah yes... we should have been absolutely brutal because we wanted to remove an 'absolutely brutal' regime and replace it with our hand-picked 'absolutely brutal' regime? Yeah, I don't see why the world didn't flock to support us in that notion.

... and Klu... please don't ever expect a cite from DRUNK... they're anathema... or allergy-related... or sumthin.

[Big Klu]

... and Klu... please don't ever expect a cite from DRUNK... they're anathema... or allergy-related... or sumthin.

It's always good to throw out there, nevertheless. Stirring the pot and whatnot.

[redrum]

I wonder how this guy got away with this on You Tube.

You think he's implying anything?

Watch it to the end.

[Pb Derigable]

I wonder how this guy got away with this on You Tube.

You think he's implying anything?

Watch it to the end.

Well thats the scence were he was told about 9/11 in that daycare(?) I think they are implying that he was smiling or smirking. which is just implying he caused 9/11 so he can attack iraq.

[Lake of Shadows]

It's always good to throw out there, nevertheless. Stirring the pot and whatnot.

Oh yeah, definitely... just don't count on it ever happening.

But... if it does, maybe we could have a party or sumthin'.

I wonder how this guy got away with this on You Tube.

You think he's implying anything?

Watch it to the end.

The high speed photography stuff is wonderful. The bit at the end with Dubya looking very Duh-bya doesn't fit at all.

Well thats the scence were he was told about 9/11 in that daycare(?) I think they are implying that he was smiling or smirking. which is just implying he caused 9/11 so he can attack iraq.

If anything, beyond the knee-jerk 'that doesn't fit' response I had, my next impression was that he was saying Bush should've been like the bottle of ketchup, the fruit, etc... i.e. he's a target that hasn't been hit yet. If that's what the person who posted that meant... well, I can see why Redrum wonders about it. As much as I despise Duh-bya, I certainly don't advocate using him as target practice, regardless of how spectacular the high speed filming of it would be.

I've heard/read a lot of the criticism of Bush when he was at the school and got told about 9/11. I've never heard anyone say they thought he was smiling or smirking... but that he looked baffled, confused, etc.

FWIW, from what I'd seen/heard about Duhbya when he was notified of the 9/11, I don't have any particular problem with his immediate 'reaction'... he frequently looked baffled and confused, so that was nothing new. My quibble with him was his reactions/decisions after that... and after we went in to Afghanistan.