Originally Posted By Mr X ***Regarding that last part, it's kind of ironic that one of the best traits you could ask for in a friend is the one thing that made his Presidency less than stellar.*** You really believe that loyalty to his friends is the ONE THING that destroyed (yeah, works better than "less than stellar") his presidency. The ONE THING, DAR? You know how pilots talk about how having one thing go wrong doesn't cause a catastrophic plane wreck..it's a whole series of mishaps and missteps that lead to all the charred bodies on the ground? Yeah.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Dar serious question before Mr. X comes back here to berate you some more . Do think history will judge Bush better in the long run? I know you like him a tad bit better than Mr. X does--hell Saddam likes him a tad bit better than Mr. X does , but how we be viewed in 30 years in your opinion?
Originally Posted By DAR Domestically I think he won't be looked on favorably. But if and I realize it's a big IF, but if things appear to be stable in Iraq and the Middle East then I think reasonable people will see that part of his Presidency as somewhat of a success. I didn't have a problem with us going in there, the problem was that he picked the wrong people to lead the way, Rumsfield and Bremmer. But trust me I'm not that enamored with the guy and will acknowledge that he will go down as one of our worst Presidents.
Originally Posted By mele We've had a few LPers constantly say that history would veiw Bush favorably but I just can't see that happening.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Yeah, I think alot of it will turn if Iraq is a stable, U.S. FREE, democratic country a few decades down the line. Afterall, the man basically gambled his entire presidency on it and I think its fair to say he crapped out . But, who knows, things could change dramatically and the once grand doctrine he had for Iraq and the middle east could come true. Personnally, I always understood view on the middle east and transformation of a democracy. It was a bold and grand idea and I know he wanted to be the one to forge a new era in that region. On paper, it looks quite nice actually. The problem was you cant transform an area that's been fighting with each other for thousands of years just to expect a western type democracy in a few years. It was misguided, arrogant and utterly stupid. I knew it was a bad idea from the start (I think a few people remember some of those threads ) BUT, I was hoping to be proven wrong, I truly was. I wanted in all my heart to know the guy who is in the White House is a thousand times smarter than I could ever be and prove us all wrong. Problem was, he didn't.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Yeah, I think alot of it will turn if Iraq is a stable, U.S. FREE, democratic country a few decades down the line. >> I've read very few history books that ever attribute long term trends to a President. They are largely held accountable for the things that happen while they are in office. If Iraq becomes stable, the credit for that will be assigned to the President that oversees the long term stabilization and troop withdrawal. Since Bush had no plans for withdrawal, he will never get credit for anything that happens in Iraq once he is gone. He will be judged on what occurred under his watch, nothing else.
Originally Posted By magnet You cannot force democracy on any group of people. Successful revolutions really must begin and be sustained from within as the people themselves decide on regime change. If Iraq ever becomes a stable democracy it will be because strong leaders emerged from within the country to guide it there. That being said, Bush would garner some credit for starting the process and creating an environment where democracy could grow. That alone would keep his presidency from being judged a total failure, but it would NOT change the overall historical view on his doctrine of preemption, the holding cell in Guantanamo, and the violations of civil rights done in the name of national security.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Well ... had to see it opening day ... to a packed theater in Arclight Hollywood at 5pm today. But I'll tell ya .... for a theater packed with 500 or so people ... It was not the rousing, snickering, cheering, booing I thought I was going to get with Opening Day crowds. I wanted to capture that audience enthusiasm and participation. Well guess what........ Oliver Stone did not create a film with any over the top scenes, dialog ... It was all pretty straight up. Which is I feel was the way to go with this film. A few chuckles, few laughs, a few gasps. That was about it. It was really a "sobering" look at the Bush Administration .. and "W.s" life beginning in his school days in 1966 .. leading up to present day. It goes back and forth between present day (2002) -leading up to the Iraq war .. and his life between the years of 1966 to 1999. I have found some of Oliver Stone's work to be a bit over-the-top for my tastes. Like J.F.K. .. but this was handled in a more "straight up" manner. Stone does not wonder into any speculative material. It's pretty much all factual material. I won't give it away ... but the ending was poignant to say the least. But I have to say ... what is the most unbelievable quality to this film ... is the fact this is a movie based on a US President STILL in office! I don't think a Bio on a current sitting president has ever been done before. Says a lot. btw - I thought Ellen Burstyn's role was pretty good .. considering how small her part was. And of course .... It's just amazing to see Josh Brolin in the role of Bush. I feel dated! LOL ... I used to watch his dad on Marcus Welby MD growing up in the 70s! And I AIN'T that old! (44)
Originally Posted By WorldDisney The film seems to be getting a lot of mixed reviews, but most saying that Stone didnt overdo it and actually made people sympathize with the President more than anything. I really want to see this film, not to dog Bush, it just looks interesting. But it's only released in America so far and a few other countries in the next few weeks, so who knows when it will come.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>but most saying that Stone didnt overdo it and actually made people sympathize with the President more than anything.<< That's exactly how I felt. A little more sympathetic. But that's just Oliver Stone's point of view. Who knows EXACTLY how Bush conducted himself among the various relations he had with all the various people surrounding him. But for the 8 years .. every time he gets before a microphone .. the way he stumbles through almost every speech he ATTEMPTS to get through .. it's just so embarrassing. Just like the way Sarah Palin can barely get through a talk with anyone .. that is not preplanned for her. Between the two of them .... it's like first day in Kindergarten! Josh Brolin is an actor who delivered his lines pretty clearly .. as he had to, to get through a film of 2 hours. The real George W. Bush seems to stumble and talk so slow to make any cohesive sense out of anything he says!
Originally Posted By oc_dean I should add Josh Brolin talked with a faster pace with clearly sounding .. constructed sentences .... almost like a different person than what we've seen for 8 years .. who talks at a slower pace.
Originally Posted By jdub I saw it yesterday, as well. It had its funny moments, but they were from Bushisms most of us have heard. Overall, the film was tepid & pointless--broke no new ground, seemed at least an hour longer than it was, and CERTAINLY should not be an Oscar contender. On the performance side, Dreyfuss and his makeup people did a great job on Cheney, while the effect of Thandie Newton's Condoleeza Rice was an underdeveloped, SNL-worthy (this is pre-Fey-as-Palin, I'm talkin') mess. Loved the preview, anticipated the film highly--but knowing now what I wish I'd known then--wouldn't even bother spending the time to watch it on video.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney So did anyone else end up seeing this movie in the end? I ask because a few people said they would and only two reviews so far. JIM seemed the most excited about it, did you actually check it out what you think? There is a rumor its suppose to come to Australia soon so curious now.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Ive not seen it yet but really want to. Busy week and weekends. I did watch 'The Happening' on PPV - M. Night Shamalan's latest. What an un-scary pile o' poop that movie is. Neat idea -- no story.
Originally Posted By Mr X Why hasn't this been moved to general entertainment, anyway? (I can sorta imagine why) SPOILER ALERT Okay, I saw it. My review...boring. WAY too sympathetic of Bush imho (but what did you expect from ME...I HATE the guy )...but the actor did I great job I thought. In fact, a lot of the acting was pretty cool (AMAZING they found someone who came off just as sycophantic and pasty as Rove...what a brilliant casting call right there!!). Wasn't crazy about Powell and Condoleeza though (Powell seemed far weaker than I would imagine the real man to be in such meetings, almost a wuss really and I don't buy it..and out of all of them, Condi was the most "caricature-ish" and I think SHE'S a good deal smarter than she was portrayed). Nice job by Zephram Cochrine as Daddy Bush, I thought. Tough role to pull off. Also kudos to Mr. Holland for playing "evil Dick" Cheney, another difficult to pull off role without going all cartoonish and making him a James Bond villein. So the casting and the acting were pretty much spot-on with the two exceptions (and those actors still did a decent job with the script they were handed). Anyway...I think this movie was about 5 years (or more) too soon anyway, but what Stone did with it really just didn't move me much. Okay, Bush has Dad issues (I guess), but I think there's lots more to the man and the madness that they didn't explore. I give the movie a C-, which considering it's about George W. Bush is pretty darned appropriate!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***while the effect of Thandie Newton's Condoleeza Rice was an underdeveloped, SNL-worthy (this is pre-Fey-as-Palin, I'm talkin') mess*** MORE SPOILERS jdub, this is exactly what I wanted to say about Condi. It really just didn't come off well at all I thought. THAT, and the Powell performance (the script more than the actor) bummed me out. IMHO those two are a couple of the most intriguing personalities in the Bush "family", and I really wish they'd been handled differently. I still can't get over how pasty and sycophantic that Rove guy was though. Come on, that wasn't funny as hell? I thought so, anyway. Rove and Cheney were spot on I thought.
Originally Posted By Mr X WD, I think you should go see it. There's enough in there that you'll appreciate that I don't think you'll feel like you wasted your money. I'm not saying you'll come out thinking "and the Oscar goes to...", BUT, I think considering your politico mindset you'd enjoy it.
