Treated fairly = honestly.  Therefore Bush will come off as the stupid, brow-beaten, incompetent war-monger & anti-American Constition jerk that he is.  No problem there.

Treated fairly? Fair treatment would require his properly being described as a war criminal, responsible for the deaths and maimings of hundreds of thousands, for starters. Toss in undermining of Constitional protections which he was sworn to uphold and other impeachable offenses, and the only fair question left to be asked about his administration is whether this country can ever recover from it.

Stone Gears Up for ‘W’ -

Do us all a favor and gear down. We have no need for any Bu$h reminders once he’s gone. Thank you.

Lets hope Stone hasn’t lost his courage to sail against the wind, the way he did in his film, “JFK.”

Over at Historymatters.com, I wrote the following about Stone’s take on JFK and Vietnam, and the ruckus it caused. Guess what, he’s been vindicated and his detractors proven wrong.

Gary Aguilar

JFK, Vietnam, and Oliver Stone
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/JFK, Vietnam, and Oliver Stone/JFK, Vietnam, and Oliver Stone.htm

Gary Aguilar
November, 2005

Oliver Stone would scarcely have elicited more righteous indignation by lecturing Baptist ministers on the evils of Christianity than he did among journalists and historians by releasing his popular film JFK. Pundits by the pack bristled at Stone’s contempt for the Warren Commission. One of the outrages that provoked particular vehemence was Stone’s revisionist representation of Kennedy as a president who threatened The Establishment because he would not have taken the country to war over Vietnam. But the outcry wasn’t just about his bad history. It had at least as much to do with the director’s chutzpah in trespassing onto turf owned by career journalists and historians.

In the Washington Post, George Will called JFK a “three hour lie from an intellectual sociopath."[1] Noam Chomsky dedicated an entire book – “Rethinking Camelot” – to debunking Stone’s notion that under Kennedy the history of Southeast Asia would have been altogether kinder and gentler.[2] Leslie Gelb sneered from the pages of the New York Times that the “torments” of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson over Vietnam “are not to be trifled with by Oliver Stone or anyone."[3] A banner headline on the cover of Newsweek barked: “Why Oliver Stone’s New Movie Can’t Be Trusted."[4]

Stone’s crackpot history had apparently imperiled the public not only by throwing mud at perhaps America’s most respected murder investigation, but also by rewriting American history to push his leftist, anti-American agenda. The message was that there was danger when moviemakers forgot their place. Theirs was the business of entertaining, not interpreting history. That business was best left in the capable hands of credentialed authorities.

Across the political spectrum those authorities derided Stone’s war-wary peacenik on grounds his “JFK” bore no resemblance whatsoever to the historical JFK. Behind a pacific façade, received wisdom had it, Kennedy was really a clanking Cold Warrior spoiling for a fight – in Southeast Asia, in Cuba and perhaps elsewhere. In the context of his treatment of Diem, Stone’s critics placed JFK’s occasionally fierce, if conflicted, rhetoric.

“By November, sanctioning a coup against an ally in the name of winning the war had been added,” wrote Robert Bartley in The Wall St. Journal. “Then withdraw? Joe Kennedy’s competitive kid? The ‘bear any burden’ guy? Give me a break. Acolytes love this myth dearly … .” [5] Another historian, William Gibbons, said that it “is absurd” to imagine that Kennedy would have pulled out.[6] In The Nation Magazine, Alexander Cockburn wrote, “The public record shows JFK was always hawkish.”[7] And in no less than the respected Reviews in American History, Max Holland, a Nation Magazine contributing editor, declared that it was a “fantasy that Kennedy was on the verge of pulling out from Vietnam.”[8]

The years that followed have not been kind to those who had stoned the director. “Received wisdom” has been swamped by a tsunami of new and credible scholarship brought about by the declassifications of literally millions of pages of government secrets. The impetus for their release came directly from Stone, who publicly nagged about the absurdity of the government saying the case was “open and shut” while suppressing mountains of the evidence.

No doubt to the dismay of Stone’s detractors, a strikingly different and more favorable – even more Oliver Stone-like - view of Kennedy has recently emerged ... .

No disrespect to Josh Brolin, but Christopher Walkin would have been an ideal GW character actor. It takes a lot of talent to play a puppet without strings.