Not Much Dubya in Stone’s ‘W.’

Is Stone going to do a biography of Obama?

I mean portraying his associations with:
Bill Ayres, Reverend Wright, Father Fegler,
Tony Rezco, ACORN, and the rest of the subjects
that prove I am a racist for even mentioning.

I recognize that I'm dealing in utter fantasy but I
predict that if he were to do it after January 2009,
he would end up in a government-run rehabilitation
prison to correct his thinking.

I'm being overly dramatic? Check out The Fairness Doctrine.

Jim Mukubansky

Is Stone going to do a biography of Obama?

I mean portraying his associations with:
Bill Ayres, Reverend Wright, Father Fegler,
Tony Rezco, ACORN, and the rest of the subjects
that prove I am a racist for even mentioning.

I recognize that I'm dealing in utter fantasy but I
predict that if he were to do it after January 2009,
he would end up in a government-run rehabilitation
prison to correct his thinking.

I'm being overly dramatic? Check out The Fairness Doctrine.

Jim Mukubansky

Is Stone going to do a biography of Obama?

I mean portraying his associations with:
Bill Ayres, Reverend Wright, Father Fegler,
Tony Rezco, ACORN, and the rest of the subjects
that prove I am a racist for even mentioning.

I recognize that I'm dealing in utter fantasy but I
predict that if he were to do it after January 2009,
he would end up in a government-run rehabilitation
prison to correct his thinking.

I'm being too dramatic? Check out The Fairness Doctrine.

Jim Mukubansky

Why whatever could you possibly mean " "W." might have had some impact had it been made four years ago. But it's both too late and too early for a movie about our sitting president." I am sure that when you say it "might have had some impact had it been made four years ago" you can't be talking about trying to influence the election? The media would never attempt to do that, because journalists do not inject their opinions into their articles and movie maker's would never try to influence an election. It is a coincidence that Fahrenheit 911 came out just prior to the past election. Media bias can't exist. It would be downright un-American. I am sure that isn't what you meant.

Why whatever could you possibly mean " "W." might have had some impact had it been made four years ago. But it's both too late and too early for a movie about our sitting president." I am sure that when you say it "might have had some impact had it been made four years ago" you can't be talking about trying to influence the election? The media would never attempt to do that, because journalists do not inject their opinions into their articles and movie maker's would never try to influence an election. It is a coincidence that Fahrenheit 911 came out just prior to the past election. Media bias can't exist. It would be downright un-American. I am sure that isn't what you meant.

I know who Pres. Bush is, but who is David Ansen?

I know who President Bush is, but who is David Ansen?

I saw the preview of this movie last night, and I have to disagree with this review. The reviewer claims this movie is not "newsworthy" and is irrelevant to the current political situation of the Nation. This is way off the mark. For me, W's strongest parts are when it focuses on the buildup to the war in Iraq. It is fascinating and tragic to see how a small group of people managed to convince themselves, and the Nation, that this was a war worth fighting. I agree with the reviewer, that Powell "comes off the best, fighting his losing battle against the rush to war." But therein lies the real tragic part of this movie, and the war; Powell knew this war was wrong, he argued against it, but at the end he capitulated and decided to "go along with W" and gave his infamous UN speech, that even had me convinced when I saw it in 2003. And then Tony Blair, England's PM, is also shown having reservations about the war, wanting to give the UN inpectors more time because they were not finding any WMDs; be he also capitulates. No "profiles in courage" there. If any of those two gentlemen had have said no to W, things could have come out differently.

True the coverage of the Economy has overshadowed the war, but nevertheless it's a war that is still being waged and still matters; Americans and Iraquis are still dying because if it. And we have two candidates for the presidency who have different takes on how to bring this war to a resolution. Although it has almost become a cliche, George Santayana's famous quote is still valid, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." W tells us a story that is still relevant to our times and is a cautionary tale against waging pre-emptive wars (yes Gov. Palin, the Bush doctrine).

Wow Ansen, to borrow from common British vernacular: you're a bit of a C U Next Tuesday. "Neocons" is an acceptable term for use in a supposedly politcally neutral magazine like Newsweek? And Stone "grants them the sincerity of their delusions"? that's a bit presumptiously biased and accusatory. What the heck do you know about what conversations were had before going to war?

Now for the truth, what does this statement have to do with Obama and his presidency, other than the fact that Rev. Jesse Jackson and Obama are both African American? Jackson has no say, or influence over Obama's campaign.

"Press Releases

AJC Strongly Condemns Rev. Jesse Jackson's Comment on American Jews
October 14, 2008 - New York - The American Jewish Committee (AJC) has condemned the Rev. Jesse Jackson's statement about 'Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades.'
"Rev. Jackson's remarks, which appeared in an interview with the journalist Amir Taheri in today's New York Post, echo classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power," said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. 'This statement, regrettably, is not the first troubling comment by Rev. Jackson regarding Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people.'

Arguing as a private citizen that an Obama administration could bring significant change to U.S. foreign policy, Jackson was quoted as saying that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" would lose much of their influence should Senator Obama be elected president."


http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=6107743

And people are upset about raciest comments some in the crowd are allegedly saying at Palin events? Isn't this the same Democrat leader who once called New York "Hymietown"?

I didn't become a Christian out of a psychologically and intellectually shallow "terror of ambiguity", but because there is a loving God who cared enough to die for me. An alcoholic who can respond to that love isn't doing it out of a need to prop up a pathetic "need for a system that removes all doubt". They do it, like any person should, out of basic humility of heart and a capacity for grateful love. That's a sign of strength, not weakness.

Oh the irony! All Christians have doubts from time to time, even Mother Teresa! It is up to each person to reconcile their beliefs and accept that they won't always have all the answers. That doesn't mean they stop believing in God's love .
What amazes me is the certainty with which the author stereotypes Christians and compares us to mindless addicts. Maybe Mr Ansen could open his mind and accept an open invitation to come worship with me anytime.

This link of a CSPAN video may help set the context, as these hearings were at the time of McCains attempt at S.190.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

"Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis"