HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Oliver Stone's "docu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:37 PM

Oliver Stone's "documentary" is a farce.

How anyone can be dumb enough to believe Stone making a "documentary," after his bullshit "JFK" docu-drama, is beyond me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/oliver-stone-rewrites-history-again.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

53 replies, 6282 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
Reply Oliver Stone's "documentary" is a farce. (Original post)
Archae Nov 2012 OP
Enrique Nov 2012 #1
Archae Nov 2012 #3
vaberella Nov 2012 #7
Archae Nov 2012 #9
Johonny Nov 2012 #31
MinM Nov 2012 #12
bluestateguy Nov 2012 #2
UTUSN Nov 2012 #4
applegrove Nov 2012 #5
oswaldactedalone Nov 2012 #8
applegrove Nov 2012 #34
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #6
Archae Nov 2012 #10
KittyWampus Nov 2012 #39
zappaman Nov 2012 #45
pansypoo53219 Nov 2012 #11
still_one Nov 2012 #27
JCMach1 Nov 2012 #13
Archae Nov 2012 #14
JCMach1 Nov 2012 #53
MadHound Nov 2012 #15
Octafish Nov 2012 #18
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2012 #16
Berlum Nov 2012 #17
CBGLuthier Nov 2012 #19
joeybee12 Nov 2012 #20
Archae Nov 2012 #21
Octafish Nov 2012 #22
zappaman Nov 2012 #24
Octafish Nov 2012 #38
zappaman Nov 2012 #46
Octafish Nov 2012 #49
zappaman Nov 2012 #50
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #32
woo me with science Nov 2012 #43
zappaman Nov 2012 #23
Octafish Nov 2012 #25
zappaman Nov 2012 #26
Octafish Nov 2012 #37
woo me with science Nov 2012 #41
Junkdrawer Nov 2012 #28
JPZenger Nov 2012 #29
Bluenorthwest Nov 2012 #30
Archae Nov 2012 #48
LTR Nov 2012 #33
MinM Nov 2012 #35
LittleBlue Nov 2012 #36
Capt. Obvious Nov 2012 #40
Guy Whitey Corngood Nov 2012 #42
Capt. Obvious Nov 2012 #44
Guy Whitey Corngood Nov 2012 #47
Capt. Obvious Nov 2012 #51
rock Nov 2012 #52

Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:03 AM

1. the thing that ruined "JFK" for me

was Kevin Costner. I enjoyed the movie a million times more with the DVD Commentary by Stone. He had a lot of really interesting things to say, I would definitely recommend it.

I loved his "Nixon" a lot more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:09 AM

3. "Interesting?"

I heard that commentary as well.
"Interesting" maybe.

A fucking load of bullshit for sure.

Don't forget Stone whined about the "Jewish-Owned media," and is a fucking liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:00 AM

7. What is up with this Anti-Semitic meme running around in Hollywood?

For a high level of liberal-minded people---they seem to have a reigning prejudice against the Jewish community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:51 AM

9. Not just liberals in Hollywood.

The worst anti-Semite I know of in Hollywood is Mel Gibson.

There is a story about Henry Ford and Jews in Hollywood, it might be true.
Seems Henry Ford was going to use his pet newspaper to rant about Jews "controlling Hollywood."

So a group of movie producers, (many of them were Jewish, of course,) had a meeting with Henry Ford, and showed him some safety films showing the aftermath of car crashes.

And all the cars in those films were Fords.

Henry Ford canceled his "Jews run Hollywood" newspaper articles VERY quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:29 PM

31. The part where he says

Aids was created by the government... yeah Stone has issues.

I think he is a interesting director for instance the JFK movie is visually stunning movie. I loved Nixon as well. His Bush movie wasn't as good if only because Bush was the least interesting person you meet in the movie. Stone clearly believes things and has an agenda of his own. People that think somehow Stone is interested in an unbiased "truth" might want to consider what Stone sees as true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:08 AM

12. The late Larry Hagman in Nixon (1995)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:07 AM

2. JFK was an incomprehensible confusing mess

After watching it 5 times I still could not figure out what was allegedly going on.

Oh, and that soupy closing argument by Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) at the end? Never happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:20 AM

4. Well, O.K. (I read the whole link.)But it was priceless when STONE dropped his bomb on Morning Scab

about The Greatest Generation, this would be in BROKAW's home, BROKAW not present. None of the Scabs gang disputed what he said, while they just froze and let it hang in the air.

And Midnight Express (screenplay/STONE) is a riveting movie. Actually, I steered glancingly at JFK and have not seen Nixon, which says what about a DUer/political junkie, that I prefer his art over his history? Liked Alexander.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:49 AM

5. I agree JFK was make believe. But it is great movie making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:08 AM

8. I also agree

that the movie JFK was make believe, as evidenced by my screen name which evolved from a DU debate on JFK conspiracies, not that I want to hijack the thread and open that debate again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oswaldactedalone (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:27 PM

34. As a kid, my brother used to have a book on a jfk conspiracy. I used

to laugh at the envidence trying to proof oswald didn't act alone. Including a photography of oswald holding a gun, where 'the shadows were off'. I've never believed any such thing. But I loved Oliver Stone's movie because it wrapped up the tradgedy in a way actual history does not. History and reality are really, really messy. Guess I've always been a skeptic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:58 AM

6. it's a ten-part TV series, not a 'documentary'.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:53 AM

10. Ok, it's a "documentary" series then.

It's still pure horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:47 PM

39. It's loathsome on a liberal website that anyone would DARE judge a move without seeing it first.

It says a lot about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:48 PM

45. Is there a post where the OP says they haven't seen it?

It's been running for a few weeks now...up to episode 5?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:23 AM

11. i vowed around JFK never to watch a stone movie.

still haven't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:43 PM

27. last movie I saw from stone was platoon. Won't waste time with his vision of things anymore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:14 AM

13. Oliver Stone has been a RW whipping boy for a long, long time (since Platoon)

and ummmm, sometimes not without reason.

I remember one of my film professors (one of the founders of the infamous Accuracy in Media) hated, hated, hated him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCMach1 (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:54 AM

14. "Sometimes?"

Oliver Stone has an agenda, based on far-far-left politics.

That means he will LIE over and over to push his agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:43 PM

53. there are some of his movies that aren't

guided so much by politics.

Alexander? okay, one movie LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:34 AM

15. Well, I would have to watch the piece in order to judge it fairly,

 

However there is a lot more to the start, and conduct, of the Cold War than what we're taught in standard high school and college history classes.

For years and decades the US grossly overestimated Soviet power and intentions. For instance, in the aftermath of WWII, the Soviets were pulling up railroad tracks in East Germany. This came to be interpreted as the Soviets were putting down more track in advance of an invasion of West Germany.

Perhaps the biggest, and one can certainly wonder if it was deliberate, overestimation of Soviet power came from one man over a span of twenty years, Reinhardt Gehlen. During WWII, Gehlen served as the head of intelligence for the Nazis in Eastern Europe, namely the Soviets. As the war was winding down, Gehlen decided to try and write his own ticket. He took all the records he could, buried them in a safe place, and then basically proceeded to turn himself over to the US forces. The US was indeed under a legal obligation to turn Gehlen over to the Soviets, but they didn't. Instead, they retrieved his little treasure trove and put him to work for us.

At the time, and for years to come, the US didn't have any sort of intelligence assets in the Soviet Union. The boys in the CIA made Gehlen their top man in Soviet intelligence. Now think about this, what could possibly go wrong, putting a virulent Nazi in charge of gathering and reporting intelligence about his worst enemy, Communists? Yeah, that's exactly what happened. For years Gehlen fed the CIA grossly overstated reports of massive Soviet military buildup. You see, until the US either got eyes in the sky over the USSR, or the US decided to run an independent intelligence operation in the Soviet Union, there was no way to verify what Gehlen fed us. And feed us he did. What later turned out to be dozens of ICBM's magically morphed into hundreds, what were hundreds of troops on the border became tens of thousands. Of course, the US responded, engaging in an arms race where the racing was, at least initially, quite one sided. We were spending our treasure on responding to a military threat that was much less than what we thought.

The kicker is that even when we got the capability to double check Gehlen's reports with U2 overflights and other, more honest intelligence, we continued to act like, and act on, Gehlen's intelligence like it was completely true. We continued to build up our military forces, and in response the Soviet Union built up theirs, and we built up our even further in response to that.

All based on some crazy vengeful Nazi who was feeding us false info. Even after it was proven that his info was false. But by the time it was found out that his intel was false, too many people in power were making too much money. The MIC was in its first full flower during the '50's, and it wasn't going to give up while there was money to be made, which is why we're still saddled with wars of empire to this very day.

Like I said, I haven't watched Stone's show, but if this is what he touches on, then more power to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:53 AM

18. Stone does the nation a service by bringing up the things the rightwing prefers we move on from.

How anyone, particularly "progressive, liberal Democrats," can agree with the fictions foisted by Washington and the toadies in Corporate McPravda is startling. It's as if they never heard of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution or WMDs in Iraq.

Oliver Stone, on the book, "JFK and the Unspeakable":

Why does it matter? The death of JFK remains a critical turning point in our history. Those who caused his death were targeting not just a man but a vision -- a vision of peace. There is no calculating the consequences of his death for this country and for the world. Those consequences endure. To a large extent, the fate of our country and the future of the planet continue to be controlled by the shadowy forces of what Douglass calls "the Unspeakable." Only by unmasking these forces and confronting the truth about our history can we restore the promise of democracy and lay claim to Kennedy's vision of peace.


Thank you, MadHound, for an outstanding post.

PS: Here's my 2-cents on the subject:

Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn t win WWII, so they backed Bushes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:37 AM

16. In other news: water is wet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:45 AM

17. Absolutely no cred

Sounds to like someone has an AGENDA to push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:00 AM

19. To me JFK was more about the fascination with the event and all the conspiracy theories

and the way they consumed some men including the Costner character. The fact that the film contradicts itself and includes just about every theory ever ventured IS the POINT of the movie. Not a real examination of who killed JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:03 AM

20. So you've seen it?

What exactly about what you saw made you come to that conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 11:36 AM

21. Too many to count.

Garrison's main source was one guy, the guy who claimed to see Oswald, Ruby and Shaw plotting the whole thing.

From Wikipedia:

Garrison's key witness against Clay Shaw was Perry Russo, a 25-year-old insurance salesman from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. At the trial, Russo testified that he had attended a party at anti-Castro activist David Ferrie's apartment. At the party, Russo said that Lee Harvey Oswald (who Russo said was introduced to him as "Leon Oswald"), David Ferrie, and "Clem Bertrand" (who Russo identified in the courtroom as Clay Shaw) had discussed killing President Kennedy. The conversation included plans for the "triangulation of crossfire" and alibis for the participants.

Russo’s version of events has been questioned by some historians and researchers, such as Patricia Lambert, once it became known that part of his testimony was induced by hypnotism, and by the drug sodium pentothal (sometimes called "truth serum"). An early version of Russo's testimony (as told in Assistant D.A. Andrew Sciambra's memo, before Russo was subjected to sodium pentothal and hypnosis) fails to mention an "assassination party" and says that Russo met Clay Shaw on two occasions, neither of which occurred at the party. However, in his book On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that Russo had already discussed the party at Ferrie's apartment before any "truth serum" was admitted. Moreover, in several public interviews, such as one shown in the video The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes, Russo reiterates the same account of a party at Ferrie's apartment that he gave at the trial.

Jim Garrison defended his conduct regarding witness testimony, stating:

Before we introduced the testimony of our witnesses, we made them undergo independent verifying tests, including polygraph examination, truth serum and hypnosis. We thought this would be hailed as an unprecedented step in jurisprudence; instead, the press turned around and hinted that we had drugged our witnesses or given them posthypnotic suggestions to testify falsely.


In "JFK," Kennedy is seen to have been shot from several angles.
CREDIBLE ballistics have proven one shooter fired all three shots.
Marine marksman, far-far-left Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Stone had Garrison give a rousing speech, at the close of the trial.
Garrison wasn't even there at the close of the trial.

The jury took an hour and a half, including lunch, to get their verdist of not guilty.

Garrison was a grandstanding corrupt jerk.

And Stone celebrates him, making him out to be a crusading truth-finder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:04 PM

22. Is that the same Wikipedia famous for CIA revisions?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/16/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816

Taking Wikipedia's word on Jim Garrison, who said the agency had some kind of role in the assassination of President Kennedy, then would be what's odd.

For those interested in learning more about Garrison:

http://www.joanmellen.net/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:29 PM

24. Garrison was a fraud

who attempted to link some New Orleans residents to the assassination and failed miserably.
Even his assertion that Clay Shaw used the alias "Clay Bertrand" was bullshit and he couldn't put a single witness on the stand to attest to this ridiculous theory.
But anyone who wants to see all the bullshit this fraud put out, can go here...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm

Almost 50 years later, and some still think Garrison credible?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:34 PM

38. Garrison was a World War II hero and a guy who devoted his life to Justice.

From 1967 -- before there were any documents released at all -- Jim Garrison interview in Playboy magazine.

EXCERPT...

GARRISON: Let me finish and you can decide for yourself. When Oswald went to Mexico City in an effort to obtain a visa for travel to Cuba, this CIA agent accompanied him. Now, at this particular time, Mexico was the only Latin-American nation maintaining diplomatic ties with Cuba, and leftists and Communists from all over the hemisphere traveled to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City for visas to Cuba. The CIA, quite properly, had placed a hidden movie camera in a building across the street from the embassy and filmed everyone coming and going. The Warren Commission, knowing this, had an assistant legal counsel ask the FBI for a picture of Oswald and his companion on the steps of the embassy, and the FBI, in turn, filed an affidavit saying they had obtained the photo in question from the CIA. The only trouble is that the CIA supplied the Warren Commission with a phony photograph. The photograph of an "unidentified man" published in the 26 volumes is not the man who was filmed with Oswald on the steps of the Cuban Embassy, as alleged by the CIA. It's perfectly clear that the actual picture of Oswald and his companion was suppressed and a fake photo substituted because the second man in the picture was working for the CIA in 1963, and his identification as a CIA agent would have opened up a whole can of worms about Oswald's ties with the Agency. To prevent this, the CIA presented the Warren Commission with fraudulent evidence --- a pattern that repeats itself whenever the CIA submits evidence relating to Oswald's possible connection with any U.S. intelligence agency. The CIA lied to the Commission right down the line; and since the Warren Commission had no investigative staff of its own but had to rely on the FBI, the Secret Service and the CIA for its evidence, it's understandable why the Commission concluded that Oswald had no ties with American intelligence agencies.

CONTINUED...

PS: McAdams, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:53 PM

46. So war heroes can't be nuts?

Another attempt by you to change the subject, my friend?
When it came to his case, yes, Garrison was most certainly a fraud.
Which is why he lost that case...there was none.
Of course that won't keep conspiracy theorists from promoting certain things he said if it aligns with whatever their particular CT is.
What's your, old friend? Still on the CIA with coverup help from LBJ, the Secret Service, RFK, and the FBI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:24 PM

49. What? Like the time Eisenhower's CIA asked the Mafia to kill Castro?

That was 1960, when Richard Milhous Nixon was a vice-president "in the loop."



AUG 1960: Richard Bissell meets with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the CIA's Office of Security, and discusses with him ways to eliminate or assassinate Fidel Castro. Edwards proposes that the job be done by assassins hand-picked by the American underworld, specifically syndicate interests who have been driven out of their Havana gambling casinos by the Castro regime. Bissell gives Edwards the go-ahead to proceed. Between August 1960, and April 1961, the CIA with the help of the Mafia pursues a series of plots to poison or shot Castro. The CIA’s own internal report on these efforts states that these plots "were viewed by at least some of the participants as being merely one aspect of the over-all active effort to overthrow the regime that culminated in the Bay of Pigs." (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/chron.html



I wonder if they told Bobby about that history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:35 PM

50. "What? Like the time Eisenhower's CIA asked the Mafia to kill Castro?"

Diverting the subject again, old friend?
I thought we were discussing JFK's assassination by the hands of double murderer Lee Harvey Oswald and how James Garrison was a "misguided" and Oliver Stone is a bullshit artist?

I will recommend the Director's cut of JFK however. It has a bonus documentary which includes footage from the very first Assassination Symposium held in Dallas in 1991.
You can see me in the footage! Were you there, my friend?
Here's a moment you will appreciate...Gerald Posner had just released his book and was invited to speak. As he was speaking(and getting a terrible response-this wasn't a friendly crowd to him), Dr. Cyril Wecht, who was sitting next to me, as we had been conversing earlier, turned to me and said "Who invited this asshole?"
Good times...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:58 PM

32. I think the other poster was asking if you'd seen the documentary you are testifying

about in the OP. Which obviously you have not.
Sad to see anyone offer up on opinion on something they have not seen, the intellectual abdication indicated by that action is not something to be proud of. It is usually far, far right wing groups who do that, like Focus on the Family. Not good company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #32)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:06 PM

43. Yup. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:23 PM

23. What is sad is that way too many people view JFK as a documentary

Even though it it chock full of pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:34 PM

25. One Big Thing Oliver Stone got right: JFK was pulling US out of Vietnam.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 12:40 PM

26. Not according to Bobby

Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with why Oswald killed him.

Martin:
There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
No.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:30 PM

37. So what? That was before LBJ used the Tonkin Gulf Incident as casus belli for sending in draftees.

And the resulting escalation to more than 500,000 ground forces that lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people, including almost 59,000 Americans -- mostly draftees, but did make a lot of money for Brown & Root and the rest of the military industrial complex.

What Bobby Kennedy said later:



Bobby Kennedy: America's first assassination conspiracy theorist

May 13, 2007
BY DAVID TALBOT

One of the most intriguing mysteries about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that darkest of American labyrinths, is why his brother Robert F. Kennedy apparently did nothing to investigate the crime. Bobby Kennedy was, after all, not just the attorney general of the United States at the time of the assassination -- he was his brother's devoted partner, the man who took on the administration's most grueling assignments, from civil rights to organized crime to Cuba, the hottest Cold War flash point of its day. But after the burst of gunfire in downtown Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, ended this unique partnership, Bobby Kennedy seemed lost in a fog of grief, refusing to discuss the assassination with the Warren Commission and telling friends he had no heart for an aggressive investigation. "What difference does it make?" he would say. "It won't bring him back."

But Bobby Kennedy was a complex man, and his years in Washington had taught him to keep his own counsel and proceed in a subterranean fashion. What he said in public about Dallas was not the full story. Privately, RFK -- who had made his name in the 1950s as a relentless investigator of the underside of American power -- was consumed by the need to know the real story about his brother's assassination. This fire seized him on the afternoon of Nov. 22, as soon as FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, a bitter political enemy, phoned to say -- almost with pleasure, thought Bobby -- that the president had been shot. And the question of who killed his brother continued to haunt Kennedy until the day he too was gunned down, on June 5, 1968.

Because of his proclivity for operating in secret, RFK did not leave behind a documentary record of his inquiries into his brother's assassination. But it is possible to retrace his investigative trail, beginning with the afternoon of Nov. 22, when he frantically worked the phones at Hickory Hill -- his Civil War-era mansion in McLean, Va. -- and summoned aides and government officials to his home. Lit up with the clarity of shock, the electricity of adrenaline, Bobby Kennedy constructed the outlines of the crime that day -- a crime, he immediately concluded, that went far beyond Lee Harvey Oswald, the 24-year-old ex-Marine arrested shortly after the assassination. Robert Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist.

SNIP...

A stunning outburst

Meanwhile, as Lyndon Johnson -- a man with whom he had a storied antagonistic relationship -- flew east from Dallas to assume the powers of the presidency, Bobby Kennedy used his fleeting authority to ferret out the truth. After hearing his brother had died at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Kennedy phoned CIA headquarters, just down the road in Langley, where he often began his day, stopping there to work on Cuba-related business. Bobby's phone call to Langley on the afternoon of Nov. 22 was a stunning outburst. Getting a ranking official on the phone -- whose identity is still unknown -- Kennedy confronted him in a voice vibrating with fury and pain. "Did your outfit have anything to do with this horror?" Kennedy erupted.

SNIP...

Kennedy had another revealing phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. Speaking with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it." Who did Kennedy mean? By then Oswald had been arrested in Dallas. The CIA and its anti-Castro client groups were already trying to connect the alleged assassin to the Havana regime. But as Kennedy's blunt remark to Williams makes clear, the attorney general wasn't buying it. Recent evidence suggests that Bobby Kennedy had heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald long before it exploded in news bulletins around the world, and he connected it with the government's underground war on Castro. With Oswald's arrest in Dallas, Kennedy apparently realized that the government's clandestine campaign against Castro had boomeranged at his brother.

CONTINUED...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GreenLeft_discussion/message/42434



Thus, given the facts, RFK's perspective changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:10 PM

28. I take it you object to the "USA as Empire" angle?

"Iraq as an imperialist project" is pure fiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:13 PM

29. He did a hatchet job on Harry Truman

I was watching an Oliver Stone documentary on Harry Truman that was a real hatchet job. Before I watched that, I didn't know that Josef Stalin was just a poor misunderstood nice guy who Truman pushed into conquering eastern Europe and killing millions of people in lands he controlled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 01:15 PM

30. I don't care for most of his films, nor for him personally, but this is not valid criticism

JFK is not a docu drama. It is not about JFK. It is about Jim Garrison. It is a political thriller. About a Garrison, not about JFK. The film accurately portrays Garrison and his story. The political thriller 'JFK' was nominated for 8 Oscars including best picture.
The new TV project is something you have not seen yet call it a farce. To be blunt, anyone who offers opinion about any film they have not seen is working some sort of agenda. To me, it sounds like some of his more interesting and direct work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:19 PM

48. I watched 10 minutes of Stone's history show.

I saw 5 lies, in just 10 minutes about WW2.

As to getting Oscars, does that mean "Gone With The Wind" was an accurate portryal of the south, slavery and the Civil War?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 02:11 PM

33. So, does this mean "Scarface" is fiction?

THAT DOES IT!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 03:58 PM

35. X - P = Richard Case Nagell

Some points of contention with the NYTimes critique from the op...
NYTimes - “JFK” was based on “On the Trail of the Assassins,” by Jim Garrison, a former Orleans Parish district attorney who, in 1969, unsuccessfully prosecuted Clay Shaw, a New Orleans businessman, for conspiring to kill the president. Kevin Costner played Garrison as an Atticus Finch type fighting an ingrained power structure, though Garrison is dismissed by many mainstream historians as a con man. In researching “JFK,” Stone also relied on L. Fletcher Prouty, a former Air Force colonel who, before becoming disillusioned with government, was chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Kennedy administration. Prouty never actually met Garrison except in Stone’s film, where he is Donald Sutherland’s Colonel X, who lays it all out for the D.A. in the shadow of the Washington Monument — how the military deliberately underprotected the president in Dallas, how defense contractors, big oil and bankers conspired with the military to make sure the president died because he didn’t intend to go to war in Vietnam. Costner is a kind of stand-in for Stone, soberly shaking his head as X says: “Does that sound like a bunch of coincidences to you, Mr. Garrison? Not for one moment.”

In advance of the film’s release, Stone pronounced “JFK” “a history lesson.” Prouty, however, who died in 2001, turned out to be extremely problematic. He had many theories in addition to his theories on Kennedy, including that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had foreknowledge of the Jonestown Massacre and that greedy oil barons invented the fiction that oil is made of decomposed fossils. And it was Prouty, Stone said, who turned him on to “The Report From Iron Mountain,” a 1967 document ostensibly written by a secret panel of military planners. The document is a favorite among conspiracy theorists, who, like Prouty, seem unaware that in 1972 the satirist Leonard Lewin admitted he wrote it. “I’ve acknowledged when I’ve made mistakes,” Stone said of the movie now. “There were a few mistakes, but nothing that changes the big story.”

It has been more than 20 years since Stone made “JFK,” a film that he now says should be looked at not as history but as a dramatized version of it — “the spirit of the truth.” “It’s called dramatic license,” Stone said about his approach in “JFK.” ...


For one thing when Oliver Stone has spoken of "dramatic license" he talks about using composite characters like Donald Sutherland's Colonel X...

Zachary Sklar explains 25-minutes into this real audio clip, and the beginning of this one, that X is a composite character based on Nagell and Prouty. Specifically, an actual conversation that Jim Garrison had with Richard Case Nagell, while the rest of the character is fleshed out in the person of L. Fletcher Prouty.

So some of the more contentious comments in this scene actually came from Richard Case Nagell...

Of course that's an inconvenient detail the NYTimes does not deal with. Since they are eager to ascribe some type of foreknowledge to Prouty in other areas. They would rather keep people in the dark about the actual foreknowledge that Richard Case Nagell demonstrated with regard to the plot to kill Kennedy.

link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:05 PM

36. He's fantastic and I'll be watching this

Thanks for letting me know so I can tune in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 04:54 PM

40. The worst part of that movie

was Jar Jar Binks. Ruined it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:03 PM

42. First time I heard that stupid thing talk I fell "back and to the left" on my ass. :-p nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #42)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 05:33 PM

44. onto the grassy knoll?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 06:09 PM

47. A grassy Knoll in the Dagobah System. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Guy Whitey Corngood (Reply #47)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:21 PM

51. These are not the magic bullets you're looking for

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:25 PM

52. But his "W." had me laughing until I cried

It is one Stone film I have no problem giving full nod to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread