Stone’s film, “W,” was much better than most have said in that it shows “W” as he really is, and was. The vile banality of George Bush is a spectacle to behold. But Stone could have been more explicit, more contextual, in framing the Bush catastrophe. To the extent he pulled his punches he deprived viewers who don’t know from understatement and nuance.

With Venezuela’s Chavez, Stone’s got a new opportunity. Sure, Chavez is a megalomaniac. But he’s vastly better than the tyrants the USA has generally installed in Latin America, tyrants who, with America’s blessing, toppled the democracies in Guatemala in ‘54, in Brazil in ‘66 and in Chile in ‘73 and ruled by death squad.

Hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered, with America’s connivance. And the same thing might easily have happened in Venezuela in 2002, with America’s blessing, had it not been for the courage of the people of Venezuela.

In a USA-abetted coup in 2002, Chavez was taken into custody and removed from the presidential palace to a remote location. A cabal of businessmen took over, with the USA championing their cause. In rapid succession, the coup leaders shut all opposition news outlets, closed congress and dismissed Venezuela’s supreme court. Our Condolezza Rice cheered this victory for “freedom” and “democracy.”

A firestorm of public opposition erupted, forcing Venezuela’s military to restore Chavez to the presidency. In a demand drenched in hypocritical, bitter irony, Condi Rice then warned Chavez that he had better abide by Venezuela’s constitution!

Well, these are the sorts of details that Stone needs to let people see. He can do it, too. Don’t buy the notion that Stone can’t be trusted on matters historical.

In the book, “Oliver Stone’s USA,” a Kansas University Press-published book, recognized historians wrote scathing essays taking Stone to task for “abusing” history in his movies - such as “JFK,” “Nixon,” “Born on the 4th of July,” “Salvador,” etc. And in response, Stone answered the “experts” with essays of his own.

Suffice it to say that, while the authorities landed some pretty solid blows, Stone more than held his own, proving that just because someone is regarded as an “authority” doesn’t mean they actually know what they’re talking about when it comes to hard, historical facts.

Let’s see what Stone is willing to do with Chavez.

We may not like Chavez’s behavior toward Bush and the USA. But would Bush have behaved any better toward the strongman if it’d been proven that Chavez had been behind a coup attempt against W, the way W had undeniably been behind a coup attempt against Hugo in 2002?

GaryA