Oliver Stone and Christopher Hitchens

In the October 22 edition of The New Yorker, there is a report of an HBO panel discussion during which Oliver Stone referred to "the revolt of September 11th."


Christopher Hitchens questioned Stone about the use of the word "revolt" and Stone replied "whatever you want to call it."

Hitchens said it was "state-supported mass murder, using civilians as missiles."


Stone then continued, saying that the Palestinians who danced in the streets at the news were reacting like people did after the revolutions in France and Russia. Hitchens said that "to say that this attack in any way resembles the French Revolution means you are a moral idiot, as well as an intellectual idiot."


I believe Hitchens is correct.


The rest of the article would lead one to believe Stone was on drugs that day. At least one hopes that is the explanation.

Anyone who dares direct a project as stupid, history-distorting, and full of demagoguery as "JFK" loses credibility completely until his dying breath.


(Come to think of it, Oliver Stone would say something preposterous and self-aggrandazing even by his dying breath. The man is consistent.)

Oliver Stone spoke at my college. He gave a rambling incoherent speech about how college is nice, and then during the Q&A he insulted anyone and everyone. My girlfriend at the time was president of the University Program Board, and was able to later confirm that he was drunk and possibly high as well.

Whatever you say about Stone, he was a Vietnam vet in the bush. That's more than you can say. He fought for your rights. You whine about his free speech. Not much of a trade on his part, watching his friends die, and killing people so that you can whine about people speakinng freely.

I don't think anyone above made any allusion to the fact that Stone shouldn't have the right to say the things he said. They just said that his comments were moronic. Don't confuse criticism of something that a person says with criticism of their right to say it. That is just as much a part of American ideology as free speech. You are grandstanding and dodging the issue by bringing Stone's military service into the discussion.

I have no idea why Hitchens is band-standing on this non-issue and debating the likes of Oliver Stone. Perhaps it gets him more appearances on junk like "Politically Incorrect" and he needs the money.


It's a non-issue because Stone would be perfectly correct in saying that the celebration by the Palestinians of the WTC bombing is akin to the celebration by Americans of the Afghanistan bombing, or perhaps more accurately the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi, to mention something more similar in pointlessness and savagery. I remember the reaction of the POW's assembled in the White House when Nixon mentioned his "tough" decision to "send in those B-52's." The cheering was thunderous.


Are Americans celebrating the innocent Afghanis killed? Were the POW's celebrating the innocent lives lost? Of course not. They were celebrating what they perceived as a violent, dramatic strike against their enemy while ignoring the insensible, insane, unrelievedly tragic aspects, a common human weakness. Some Palestinians did the same, although their leadership to a person recognized the 9/11 attacks as a devastating blow to their cause.


Hitchens would do better to point out the sickness and hypocrisy of how the 9/11 attacks are being treated in Israel as a major propaganda victory, and being used as an excuse for long-dormant repressive legislation that has nothing to do with terrorism.

The article was about Stone, not Hitchens. Hitchens would agree with your assessment (as do I) of Nixon's Xmas bombing of Hanoi and has written a book accusing Kissinger (and Nixon) of being a war criminal for this and other acts.


Whether or not Stone would be perfectly correct in saying something else is irrelevant to what he actually did say.


Hitchens has consistently pointed out what he sees as the hypocritical aspects of Israel's policies. (See, among other writings, the collection of essays edited by Hitchens and Edward Said, "Blaming the Victims.") He didn't do it here because this was not the subject under discussion.


Hitchens was on a panel and was incredulous about Stone's use of the word "revolt." His subsequent comment about Stone being an idiot was made at the luncheon that followed; he didn't call a press conference. So I don't think it was grandstanding.

I was probably too-eagerly lumping Hitchen's comment here with his two articles in The Nation chastisizing leftists for distancing themsevles from the "United We Stand" propaganda about evil incarnate.


Hitchens is obviously a significant writer on the left, but enjoys being a contrarian over things like abortion rights and the Balkans. This is too his credit, IMO, but has the tendency of giving him an undeserved spotlight in the mainstream press, as he's trotted out to point out how thick lefties are when Hitchens writes something closer to the official line. Witness the treatment of his first The Nation article by the Wall Street Journal. Still, he hasn't yet been invited back to The McLaughline group, to my knowledge, so in some circles I suppose he's still a dangerous radical.

nt

actually liked Platoon for the classic white trash line "aint nuthin better than a piece a pussy, 'cept maybe the Indy 500" . LMAO.


he is 100% idiot and NBK is candidate for worst movie ever.

I havn't read too much stuff by Hitchens but he never struck me as a leftist. I read his Kissinger indictment articles in Harpers as well as a scathing, funny as hell review of the memoirs of that idiot Norman Podhoretz.

NBK is definitely down there as one of the worst things ever made. I also hated his recent football movie (Any Given Sunday, I think it was called); only thing I ever disliked Al Pacino in.

Hated The Doors too.


I liked JFK, not as history (it was fantasy), but as entertainment. Same thing for Nixon. And Born on the Fourth of July (Tom Cruise's best performance).


Stone is a horrible person.

I liked Talk Radio and Salvador a lot.


JG

Boris,


I agree with your comments about JFK. I like the film and Stone's "control" of the material. Too bad he actually believes this claptrap since it does make for an engaiging fantasy.


John

Hitchens might bristle at the "leftist" label, but on the spectrum he's much further out than Anthony Lewis and the handful of other liberals, although the stuff he writes for Vanity Fair is pretty tame.


Any idea where I can find the Hitchens piece on Podheretz? Have you ever read the Gore Vidal piece on he and his wife, the "war of the roses" reply to them in The Nation?

Even better is his Vanity Fair article about the deaths of Princess Di and Mother Theresa.


Ranks up there with the best of H.L. Mencken and Dorothy Parker.


natedogg

http://www.findarticles.com/m1111/1789_298/54731390/p1/article.jhtml


JG

is worse by far.

Not true, you must be a peacenik lefty. Stone deserves respect for his views as they developed through his loyal service to the USA. Th moronic posts here about him come from chicken livered cowards.

He is a decorated war veteran. His films are good(Platoon is the best), and you are a chicken livered commie sympathizer.

I guess that you volunteered for military service every chance you got in life? Not once?

As a dangerous lefty safely cordoned off down in Australia, I'd like to defend Hitchens here. For those who haven't read the articles in Nation he is arguing that terrorist attacks from groups like Al Qaeda are not connected in any way to the past atrocities committed by America. Instead they represent what he calls "Islamic fascism", a highly toxic ideology calling for the deaths of all those opposed to the rule of fundamentalist Islam over the world. In other words he believes that the 9/11 attack would have occurred even if America had pursued a much less belligerent foreign policy.


I think this is a good point. Leftists who respond to 9/11 with a litany of wrongs committed by America in the past are missing the point in my opinion. The architects of 9/11 were intent on doing evil for the purposes of propagating their ideology through the world. Since they cannot be reasoned with they must be destroyed. (Of course, poverty and impotence are the breeding pits of fundamentalist hate. The root causes need to be dealt with but for the moment, it's too late for that).


I know nothing about the 1972 bombing of Hanoi but I don't think this is the time for a complete listing of the crimes committed by America. The general public doesn't usually listen to such protestations at the best of times.


I don't condemn those who cheered at the news of 9/11 but I do condemn, to death, those involved in perpetrating it. As for the Taliban, they never had any intention of helping bring the terrorists to justice and their regime is an undemocratic, corrupt and brutal one (of course, that didnt worry the Bush administration a while back when they donated $43 million to them for offering to shoot anyone who tried to scratch out a living growing opium).


Chris Alger, I don't really understand what your beef with Hitchens is. Maybe you could elaborate?


ChrisV


PS: JBarnhouse, if you're reading this, i am a commie sympathiser! but perhaps less peacenik than some. But it's OK, I live in Australia, which doesnt really exist anyway what with being outside America and all.

Excellent insight.


I thought I was covering it up pretty well but I guess my communist sympathies seeped through.


natedogg

While you bash the US maybe you could offer an explanation for this.

The following is taken from the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) website


Some refugees cannot or are unwilling to return home, usually because they would face continued persecution. In such circumstances, UNHCR helps to find them new homes, either in the asylum country where they are living or in third countries where they can be permanently resettled. Though many nations have agreed to accept refugees on a temporary basis during the early phases of a crisis, only around a dozen countries have regular resettlement programs and accept quotas of refugees on an annual basis.


Main countries of resettlement of refugees [in 2000]

1. United States 72,500

2. Canada 13,500

3. Australia (est.) 6,600


So Australia ranks third in the world in NET TERMS in the amount of assylum seekers it takes in.


The population of Australia is just over 19 million and the population of the United States is just over 285 million. That means Australia takes over 1/3 more asylum seekers per capita than the United States.


Australia also receives far more asylum requests per capita than the United States - about 19,000 as compared to the USA's 90,000. Add to this the recent large increase in the number of illegal arrivals by boat. Check this graph out:


http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/81boats2.gif


Australia cannot be expected to take all the refugees it receives. The recent rejection of one of the boats carrying primarily Afghan and Iraqi refugees (prior to 9/11) was an attempt by the government to discourage the ever-increasing people-smuggling trade. If we are going to increase refugee intake it will be the twelve and a half thousand or so who miss out applying through the proper channels, not those who try to come to the country illegally. Often the reason they choose to come here this way is that they have criminal records which will lead to Australia rejecting their applications.


The real solution to the refugee crisis is to provide better living conditions for people back home. This means economic aid to developing countries. And how does Australia rank in these terms? Well, from the CIA World Factbook 2001, of all places:


Australian Overseas Aid: $1.43 billion (FY97/98)

United States Overseas Aid: $6.9 billion (1997)


(Those were the most recent figures available for some reason)


Lets put that in a little perspective....


GDP Australia: $445.8 billion (2000 est.)

GDP United States: $9.963 trillion (2000 est.)


In terms of GDP Australia donates 4.6 times as much as the United States to developing nations.


Of course, the United States doesn't just provide food and boring stuff like that:


----


WASHINGTON, Jul 28 (IPS) - Half of the foreign aid granted by the United States last year was designed to further military and national-security interests, according to a new report released here Tuesday.


The total U.S. foreign aid bill for 1997 came to about 13.6 billion dollars, the lowest amount in real terms since the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s and less than half of US aid levels just 15 years ago. America ranks last among all developed western nations in the amount of aid it provides foreign nations expressed as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) about 0.08 percent, according to a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).


Source: http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/jul98/23_13_097.html


----


Australia is not perfect and I would like to see us do a lot more for developing countries, but American criticism about us turning away one boatload of illegal immigrants is the height of hypocrisy.


Any criticism welcome.


Chris

i remember when aust. didnt take in any people that didnt have resoucres or special skills that may help the country. since they have changed that policy i dont feel its as nice or safe a place. too often the people you let in dont not assimalate into the population but build their own side culture within and do not add to the value of life there.

the point about discouraging the people smuggling trade is well taken and one that I hadn't thought of.