Quote :

"Oliver Stone: 'I'm ashamed for my country' POSTED: 9:52 a.m. EDT, September 29, 2006 Adjust font size: SAN SEBASTIAN, Spain (AP) -- Filmmaker Oliver Stone blasted President George W. Bush Thursday, saying he has "set America back 10 years." Stone added that he is "ashamed for my country" over the war in Iraq and the U.S. policies in response to the attacks of September 11. "We have destroyed the world in the name of security," Stone told journalists at the San Sebastian International Film Festival prior to a screening of his latest movie, "World Trade Center." The film tells the true story of the survival and rescue of two policemen who were trapped in the rubble of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, after they went to help people escape. "From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11. "It's a waste of energy away from things that do matter which is poverty, death, disease, the planet itself and fixing things in our own homes rather than fighting wars with others. Mr. Bush has set America back 10 years, maybe more." The director of blockbusters such as "Platoon," and "JFK" said the U.S. reaction to the attacks was out of proportion. "If there had been a better sense of preparation, if we had a leadership that was more mature," he said. "We did not fight back in the same way that the British fought the IRA or the Spanish government fought the Basques here. Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with," said Stone. Stone rejected allegations that U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks in advance and said the real conspiracy came after. "I think that conspiracy-mongering on 9/11 is a waste of time," he said. "The far greater conspiracy occurred after 9/11 when basically a neo-cabal inside our government hijacked policy and went to war. That was as broad a conspiracy as we can get and it was about 20, 30 people. That's all, they took over and all these books are coming out and they are pointing it out," said Stone. "This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed." In the United States' favor, Stone posited that it's not responsible for all the world's problems. "You can't see that the United States is responsible for all the evil in the world because you can see so many dictators and so many bestial acts all over the world now. .... There is something in the human heart, the international human heart, that is evil," said Stone. "That's the evil that turns its mind and ears on humanity and is able to say 'I can kill a person in the name of God or religion.' This is not a human being, this a fanatic. And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9/11," said Stone. "

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/film.oliverstone.ap/index.html

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : jank]

9/29/2006 1:16:36 PM

he's not the only one.

9/29/2006 1:17:54 PM

but wasn't clinton in office then

should be all good then

9/29/2006 1:18:29 PM

clinton had been out of office for 9 months. And during those 9 months, the Bush administration basically reduced the importance of bin Laden on the nathional security front.

9/29/2006 1:27:53 PM

i'm gonna make a thread for everyone in hollywood who doesnt agree with the iraq war

9/29/2006 1:28:20 PM

what a coward, saying that from Spain

9/29/2006 1:29:32 PM

not like clinton didn't have the oppty to kill his sorry ass and chose not to

they had painted his location with a laser and were waiting for a bomb... but no


whatever though it would not have prevent 9-11

that plan was in action since at least 93

9/29/2006 1:35:41 PM

Quote :

"what a coward, saying that from Spain"

lol

9/29/2006 1:36:17 PM

I HATE THE US


BUT I LOVE THOSE AMERICAN DOLLARS

9/29/2006 1:37:16 PM

who isnt ashamed of congress and our president. the polls say we disapprove of all of them.

9/29/2006 1:37:54 PM

but you like money so you're a hypocrite

YEAH

9/29/2006 1:38:41 PM

Quote :

"not like clinton didn't have the oppty to kill his sorry ass and chose not to they had painted his location with a laser and were waiting for a bomb... but no"

actually, that was a lie with no basis in fact.

9/29/2006 1:40:13 PM

actually...thats a fact....

9/29/2006 1:41:20 PM

no, it is not a fact. not in the least bit a fact.

9/29/2006 1:41:45 PM

yeah...its fact....he could have killed him lots of times...fact

9/29/2006 1:42:47 PM

he sent missle attacks at him but bin laden wasn't around.

What about bush disbanding the CIA unit specifically created to track down bin laden and arrest him?

9/29/2006 1:44:44 PM

im not even going to argue that Clinton had chances to kill UBL....

9/29/2006 1:49:39 PM

What about Bush ignoring the Memo that basically said "Terrorists are going to fly planes into the world trade center."

It gave everything but names and a date.

9/29/2006 1:49:59 PM

we had CIA guys on the ground

ask the pentagon for permission, they couldn't do it without white house approval, buy the time he launched the missiles he was long gone


and that is a fact

clinton had the opportunity and didn't take it for various reason... not to mention when the sudanese offered him to us on a silver platter

quit being so damn defensive

9/29/2006 1:50:38 PM

Quote :

"From September 12 on, the incident (the attacks) was politicized and it has polarized the entire world," said Stone. "It is a shame because it is a waste of energy to see that the entire world five years later is still convulsed in the grip of 9/11."

9/29/2006 1:51:19 PM

Quote :

"we had CIA guys on the ground ask the pentagon for permission, they couldn't do it without white house approval, buy the time he launched the missiles he was long gone and that is a fact clinton had the opportunity and didn't take it for various reason... not to mention when the sudanese offered him to us on a silver platter quit being so damn defensive"

The pentagon did not have anyone on the ground, the cia did and the cia was told no; because they couldn't verify that Osama bin Laden was there and what the collateral damage would be.

As for the Sudan instance, the United States had no legal basis to take bin Laden. At that point in time, bin Laden had not committed a crime against the united States and therefore the US could not legally hold him.

The only thing I'm being defensive of is the facts.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 1:53:21 PM

what about bush ignoring memos??...he scrwed up....

you guys are so pathetic...again..how many times have been through this?? NO ONE IS CLAIMING BUSH DIDNT SCREW UP!!!

but dont idiots and try to claim clinton didnt screw up....morons

Quote :

"quit being so damn defensive"

seriously....you guys get more and more pathetic all th etime

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/29/2006 1:54:37 PM

Quote :

"what about bush ignoring memos??...he scrwed up.... you guys are so pathetic...again..how many times have been through this?? NO ONE IS CLAIMING BUSH DIDNT SCREW UP!!! but dont idiots and try to claim clinton didnt screw up....morons"

First, please don't insult people. It makes your points less valid as you are engagin in a logical fallacy.

the fact remains that bush cannot claim democrats are soft on terror when his administration ignored intelligence on an imminent terrorist attack.

Quote :

" seriously....you guys get more and more pathetic all th etime"

At least I know when and how to use an elipsis.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 1:56:44 PM

Quote :

"What about Bush ignoring the Memo that basically said "Terrorists are going to fly planes into the world trade center." It gave everything but names and a date."

and a place...since it didnt mention WTC

or wait, how come when we found out bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks, when Clinton was in office, he didnt go after bin Laden? the last 7 years of his time in office the Usama had US blood on his hands...Clinton was worried about all the women he had groped

9/29/2006 1:57:12 PM

Quote :

"or wait, how come when we found out bin Laden was behind the 93 attacks, when Clinton was in office, he didnt go after bin Laden? the last 7 years of his time in office the Usama had US blood on his hands...Clinton was worried about all the women he had groped"

Because there isn't any evidence that bin laden was behind the 93 attack. the consipirators in that attack were arrested and convicted.

9/29/2006 1:58:18 PM

Quote :

"Because there isn't any evidence that bin laden was behind the 93 attack"

lol i hope you're just trolling

9/29/2006 1:59:22 PM

The attack was carried out by Ramzi Yousef, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin. and yes, they did receive money from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. That does not mean bin laden was involved.

al-qaeda claims responsibilty for its attacks. they didn't claim responsibility for this one.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:01:24 PM

you must not trust the head advisor of the NSA then

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory091103b.asp

9/29/2006 2:05:23 PM

those weren't leading quesitons from the national review.

the fact remains that there was no concrete basis to link bin laden with the 1993 attack

9/29/2006 2:10:50 PM

so the Yemen hotel bombings...that happened BEFORE 93 WTC...which were bin Ladin...those didnt maybe open Clinton's eyes perhaps?

course you gotta be pretty naive to think Usama was definitely behind 9/11 WTC but not 93 WTC...let alone what the intelligence community said

maybe if they had leaked it into the newspapers you'd believe it without any question

9/29/2006 2:12:13 PM

Quote :

"Yemen and has launched terrorist operations there in the past. His first terrorist bombing is believed to have been the 1992 bombing of a hotel in Yemen used by American military personnel en route to humanitarian operations in Somalia."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/EM703.cfm

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:15 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:14:53 PM

listen, pryderi.....(ill say what i always say to him)....please....keep up your bullcrap antics about everyone being innocent of everything except the bush administration...thats why you keep losing....that is all...and thats a fact

9/29/2006 2:17:41 PM

^^proof like that would be more than satisfactory for you if it dealt with global warming

but to think usama is a bad person? no way! give him the benefit of the doubt!

9/29/2006 2:19:25 PM

you think I'm a partisan democrat?

No

In fact, i'm beyond the partisanship of everything. If you want to blame clinton for being weak on terrorism, look no further than Albania where al-Qaeda fighters were given US support. but you cannot. you'd rather focus on innuendo based losely in fact then insult the other person.

So trikk, learn how to spell, use elipsis, and develop criticial thinking.

^Can I get a coherent thought from you?

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : extra r]

9/29/2006 2:19:42 PM

Is spelled coherent, Dan Quayle

9/29/2006 2:20:41 PM

I don't think you understood the Dan Quayle joke.

9/29/2006 2:23:23 PM

i think you are just mad that you called out someone for bad spelling, yet you yourself are not a perfect speller

don't cry about it

ps: nice edit of your post to correct your horrible spelling

9/29/2006 2:27:01 PM

hahaha....cohearhant....

moron....learn how to make an arguement that doesnt hinge on how i type....you weak minded idiot

9/29/2006 2:27:24 PM

wow, I put an extra r in coherent. Sue me.

^make an actual argument and please, don't attempt to play the victim when the only thing you post is nonsense followed by a butcher of the english language in an attempt to insult.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 2:28:11 PM

I don't think you understood the Dan Quayle joke

9/29/2006 2:29:20 PM

Quote :

"And I fear that fanaticism is the result of our overreaction to 9/11," said Stone."

Fanaticism was around long before 9/11. It was even a direct contributor.

9/29/2006 2:29:26 PM

^^i'm pretty sure I'd understand my own joke. So please, quit parroting me.

9/29/2006 2:29:57 PM

well if you call someone out about spelling, please learn to spell simple words like coherent

and don't get mad when the shoe is on the other foot

9/29/2006 2:30:27 PM

well...quit trolling everyone you dont like and learn how to make an argument and make a "chohearhant" statement...and we should be good to....awesome

9/29/2006 2:31:20 PM

who spelled what cohearent?

I spelled it coherrent, I added another r.

^^I don't get mad. I just correct myself and don't repeat the mistake later on

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : ..]

9/29/2006 2:32:06 PM

I'm guessing the Dan Quayle joke was edited out? The first reference I see is in TT's post.

9/29/2006 2:32:23 PM

^it's in another thread.

9/29/2006 2:33:10 PM

what??....thats not chohearrhantt...i mean...come on

9/29/2006 2:33:13 PM

see trikk, in order to be funny, you have to base yourself in reality.

9/29/2006 2:34:15 PM

how would you know. pryderi??

9/29/2006 2:35:17 PM