Bozell Column: Oliver Stone, Lousy Historian

Photo of Brent Bozell.
  • Bookmark and Share

Dear Oliver,

Many years ago, when Bill Maher’s comedy show was hosted by Comedy Central and he was funny, his formula for success was truly unique. Every week two sets of political and/or cultural opposites were pitted against each other, and he refereed with humor. It was all designed for a good laugh and succeeded because once upon a time Bill Maher was truly funny.

Some producer really thought in extremes when they pitted Oliver Stone and Brent Bozell for one episode. I have to say that you were gracious, charming, engaging, and we enjoyed ourselves – except for that moment when I chastised you for claiming you’re an historian. You bristled and denied ever claming that moniker. I cited the source, an interview in some West Coast paper (I can’t recall which one now). “I’m a filmmaker, that’s all,” you told me.

It turns out that you were right (in the article) and I was wrong. You are an historian whether you believe it or not. You make films about history and historical figures. You record history, and that makes you an historian.

Being an historian is not the problem. It’s that you’re a lousy historian.

Your last project was the movie W. I confess I didn’t watch it: I knew it would be a predictable left-wing spin about Bush being dumb and evil, and it could be worse because it could have been Cheney. Yawn. It bombed.

You were back on Maher’s show the other day talking about historical figures. Maher wanted to know why you haven’t done a film about Ronald Reagan, since “that is the type of character you could do very well with.” God only knows what he meant by that, but when you gave your answer, you were pretty blunt.

“Nixon always said Reagan was a dumb son of a bitch,” you said, and the audience laughed, and you smiled and decided to take that statement further by agreeing with it. So you said, “You know, I think that he was,” and the audience now cheered and hooted and applauded.

See what I mean when I say you’re a lousy historian?  Don’t take my word for it, Oliver.

I turned to Frank Donatelli, the White House Political Director under President Reagan from 1987 through 1989. I asked him what he thought of your observation. Here’s what he has to say:

“Bill Maher and Oliver Stone have both made careers of ad hominem attacks on their political opponents.  As Reagan would say, 'It's not that they're ignorant.  It's just that they know so much that isn't so.' The literature as written by conservative and liberal observers is overwhelming in concluding that Ronald Reagan was fully engaged in implementing policies during his presidency that resulted in  the longest economic expansion in our history and the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Communism. His presidential reputation is growing and history will remember Reagan as one of the great presidents in our nation's history."

Ouch. I went to Richard Allen, Reagan’s National Security Advisor and asked him what he thought. Apparently he didn’t think much.

“Every respectable academic and popular analysis in the large and growing literature of the Reagan presidency and Reagan's presence on the national scene proves beyond any doubt the utter foolishness of the Oliver Stone remark. Stone has made an unsuccessful career of falsification, especially when it comes to Ronald Reagan. The actual dumbsumbitch is easy to identify.”

That’s gotta hurt. I asked Morton Blackwell. He was Special Assistant to the President between ’81 and ’84. You didn’t score points with him, either.

“Stone must be jealous,” he thinks. “All Reagan did was restore American prosperity, deep-six the Soviet Empire, restore the morale of the American people, and win two national elections by landslides. By comparison, Stone gained his notoriety by smearing people.” Blackwell adds this observation as well: “Stone must be jealous. Reagan was principled, charming, and as honest as any politician can be. Stone revels in his own his image as a slimy slug on a toadstool.”

Oh, my. Gary Bauer was Domestic Policy Advisor under the Gipper for two years. “That ‘dumb son a bitch’ ran circles around people like Oliver Stone and the other creepy Hollywood elites,” he says. “He outwitted the Kremlin, restored the confidence of the American people, rebuilt our military, sent malaise packing and unleashed years of economic growth when he lowered taxes. Most Americans loved him then and miss him now. Oliver Stone is clueless.”

Al Regnery is an historian – a real one. “Dumb like a fox. Reagan always prided himself on the fact that people underestimated him… Stone, the dumb son of a bitch, is just the latest one to fall to the trap.”

Finally, I couldn’t resist. I asked Ann Coulter what she thought. She was quick. “Two uneducated, historically ignorant boobs sitting around talking about which president they think was the dumbest – now that’s some good TV.”

We’re all still laughing, aren’t we, Oliver? Oliver?


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oliver STONED


Also read Reagan: A Life In

Also read Reagan: A Life In Letters.....   interesting read....  shows how his political ideas were formed.  When he became President,  his philosophy remained the same and he used those ideas to make put America on the right course.....  All our politicians should be so dumb..........  It just gets to me.. that this so called smart people think that because someone doesn't agree with them...  you are dumb....     I think that if you look back, most of the problems we have today stem from Democratic policies.....  

Oliver Stone and Michael

Oliver Stone and Michael Moore: a matched set of propagandists.

The Laurel and Hardy of documentary filmmaking.

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

They know nothing!!!

Like all liberal elites, these two goons profess to know more than the American people who gave Ronald Reagan two landslide victories.

Or in the words of another great Republican:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Abraham Lincoln
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

 

Oliver Stone's artistic/historical brilliance....

Ollie South (oops) Stone's successful history of making commercially viable records of factual events says it all.

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

Wow.  So a bunch of former

Wow.  So a bunch of former members of the Reagan administration - and Ann Coulter - think he was just tops.  Really went all out to get a diverse sample of commentary there, didn't we? 

Next you'll tell me Sinatra thought Nancy Reagan was the best first-lady he ever danced with.  That oughtta vindicate the disastrous 1980s approach to the drug war that has lasted to this day...

And all this to debunk Stone's joking quotation of Nixon on the subject of Reagan?  Does not compute. 

Wow, Jason.  Go flip on

Wow, Jason.  Go flip on that "satire" switch in your brain.

Oliver Stone, a Reagan-hater holds the opinion that Reagan was a dumb sonofabitch, and Bozell counters with  Reagan fans who think he was great.

Right over your head, huh?

I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.  -Bart Simpson

 

It also seems to escape everyone...

...the point that Oliver Stone finally found something that Richard Nixon said that he believes.

Stone is a Twit. 

Smoked a doobie this morning, huh, JasonC??

Problem with that is your are even more incoherent than normal, whatever normal is that passes for ya.

How's that starting out your day stoned working for ya?

ACA 

...

Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)

Wow, a bunch of Historians rate Reagan in the top ten!

Wow, a bunch of Historians rate Reagan in the top 10 greatest Presidents, ahead of Clinton (15th) and Carter (25th).

Source

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court

Reply to JasonC

JasonC wrote,

"And all this to debunk Stone's joking quotation of Nixon on the subject of Reagan?  Does not compute."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Jason.  It's good to see someone here who has a differing point of view.  I have a couple of points:

Why does it "not compute"?  It's so obvious, a child could understand it.  Stone isn't just joking.  He is perpetuating a lie that needs to be put out of its misery.  Reagan was a smart, successful and classy guy.  What Stone said is simply not true.  I think it would be easy for you to understand:  People who love and respect Ronald Reagan want to defend his memory and his legacy.  Mr. Bozell is simply saying, "No, Reagan was NOT stupid."  It's a lie that has devolved into a drum beat.  Any decent person - whether a Reagan fan or not - should stand up for the truth and reject Stone's idiotic insult.  When people like him use their skills and their platform to perpetuate lies, we all have a duty to tamp those lies down.  They are like stray embers in a dry forest.  And with historical figures, lies are particularly dangerous because they end up rewriting history.  

Your argument does not compute.  What's your point?  If your point is to argue that Reagan was, indeed, stupid, you gave no proof of it.  Mr. Bozell cited Reagan's accomplishments, like his successful move against the Soviet Union and his double landslide victories, etc.  And he quoted people who can attest to his intellectual abilities first hand.  I think any basic understanding of Reagan's life and background would dispell any notions that he was a dunce.  However, one has to be fair-minded and honest to do that.

But are you honest?  You give yourself the ability to dismiss all arguments, not on the basis of what is said, but on the basis of who says it -- "Ann Coulter?  Ha!  I can ignore everything she says simply because she's Ann Coulter!" -- You automatically reject all of the first-hand accounts of Reagan's smarts....Why?  Because their views are biased?  Well, what about Oliver Stone?  His undisguised hatred for Reagan should make anything HE says equally - if not more - suspect.  Right?  But it looks like you're totally on board with him.

You did not make an argument and defend it.  You attacked an argument by attacking the people who made it.  That's not very smart.  You might like to rethink that approach.    

Great comment Ted Clarke, You can lead a democrat to logic

but you can't make 'em think.

Reagan VS Liberalism

You're right, I did not

You're right, I did not make an argument.

I'm not trying to downplay Reagan's success.  I have differing ideological positions from the typical Reagan fan, but one would have to be wilfully dense to deny the man's accomplishments.

I was merely puzzled at the disparity between what Bozell was countering - Stone quoting Nixon on the subject of Reagan's personality - and what he invoked to counter it.  Stone didn't say Reagan wasn't accomplished.  Nor did Maher.  Yet, the response was a laundry list of Reagan's achievements - for some reason, provided in quotation form from people who have obvious investment in Reagan's legacy.  It just seemed an unnecessarily extraneous step.  Like as if someone offhandedly mentioned Clinton's lasciviousness, and I quoted Stephanopolous on the historical precedence of the Oslo Accords in his defense.

You presume an awful lot based on a post in which I don't even make an argument:

You automatically reject all of the first-hand accounts of Reagan's smarts

Really?

If your point is to argue that Reagan was, indeed, stupid, you gave no proof of it.

I didn't even imply this.  Nor did Stone.  Last I checked, S.O.B does not suggest stupidity.

"Ann Coulter?  Ha!  I can ignore everything she says simply because she's Ann Coulter!"

No, she's said an accurate thing or two in her career; I just found it curious that she would need to be quoted - especially given her own extreme bias and that she is widely known to believe R.R. to be the bestest president evah - in order to put forth what an even more juvenile insult than what Maher and Stone said.

 

Stone didn't imply that Reagan was stupid???

“Nixon always said Reagan was a dumb son of a bitch,”  “You know, I think that he was,” 

What in the hell was that?

Reagan was often seen as out of it because he wouldn't engage in the ridiculous pandering to any idiotic idea that someone poops out, like modern politicians do to be polite.  When he was confronted with  twit that had nothing more constructive to add to the conversation than; "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms", he would just smile and continue on his path, or maybe act like he didn't hear them.  Sure, those idiots would think he was dumb because he saw no wisdom in such natterings that weren't worth the time they took to spittle them out.  But who cares what idiots think, when you're the leader of the free world?

Aw dang, I missed the

Aw dang, I missed the "dumb" part.  I lose.

2nd reply to JasonC

Thanks for the reply JasonC,

First off, I didn't mean to presume anything.  I told you up front that I didn't understand your point.  I simply asked for clarification.  And in a very fine manner, you took the time to do just that.  So, thank you kindly for that.

You wrote, "I didn't even imply this.  Nor did Stone.  Last I checked, S.O.B does not suggest stupidity."

I think Stone said he was "a dumb son-of-a-bitch".  The word "dumb" could mean "mute".  But considering that Reagan was nicknamed "The Great Communicator" because of his oratory skills, I doubt that was what he meant.  I think it's safe to say that Stone agreed with Nixon that Reagan was stupid.  This, of course, is boilerplate for anyone on the left.  People right-of-center are invested in putting this lie to rest.  Do you have a problem with that?  It seems like you do. 

You wrote of Anne Coulter, "I just found it curious that she would need to be quoted - especially given her own extreme bias..."

Fair enough.  But why not take issue with Stone?  Is his extreme hate-filled bias more reasonable than Coulter's extreme admiration-filled bias? 

Finally, when I wrote, "You automatically reject all of the first-hand accounts of Reagan's smarts."

You replied, "Really?"

The reason I thought you rejected them out of hand is that you seemed to characterize them as either insufficient or corrupted, presumably because they were from people personally invested in a glowing Reagan legacy.  I accepted those accounts as proof that Reagan was smart.  But you seemed to reject them....but not on the substance of the words.  When you characterized Coulter as thinking Reagan was "the bestest president evah", that sounds kind of snotty and sarcastic, as if you don't have much respect for Reagan.  Of course, I could be wrong.  But it's that sort of tone in your writing that lead me to "presume an awful lot".

Thanks for setting me straight.  I appreciate it. 

Ted, So as I wrote just

Ted,

So as I wrote just above to someone else, the first syllable of 'dumsumbitch' just went right under my radar.  That pretty much sinks the majority of my critique.

Now to be honest, I don't see a whole lot of 'Reagan is dumb' rhetoric among serious (non-comedian/celebrity) commentators.  A lot of us on the left take issue with him ideologically and don't like the long-term effects of some of his economic and social policies (esp. the drug war), but if calling him stupid is generally part of this, I missed the memo.

Furthermore, if mockery of Reagan is indeed a boilerplate sentiment of the left, an overt defensiveness toward him often characterizes the right.  I especially take issue with Richard Allen's comment (as quoted by B.B.): 

“Every respectable academic and popular analysis in the large
and growing literature of the Reagan presidency and Reagan's presence
on the national scene proves beyond any doubt the utter foolishness of
the Oliver Stone remark."

This would be a laudable bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand if it weren't also kinda sleazy.  To wit, it suggests that if your reading of the Reagan presidency is not laudatory, you are by definition not respectable as a critic.

I was indeed being snotty in my adolescent lingo regarding Coulter; but rest assured, the snottiness was directed at Coulter, not Reagan.

I do not dismiss Reagan's accomplishments because they were referenced here by way of quotations from people with an obvious investment in Reagan's vindication.  I simply question why these accomplishments weren't simply stated, why the author seemed to think that they were reinforced when filtered through the mouths of such people.  For me, it had the opposite effect; I think that my Clinton/Stephanopolous analogy holds pretty well.

Ted, you seem like a stand-up guy.  Well-written posts with a tremendous amount of courtesy and tight argument.  I think this is the first I've seen of you on NB, and I hope to cross paths with you again.  Happy 4th. 

Binky Braveheart, the troll who is not a troll with mommy issues

  Binky strikes again. Binky wants us all to know he does not have mommy issues and does not, I repeat, not says Binky, not have issues with strong independent women like Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin.

 Binky insists, strongly insists, this was not, I repeat, not, and Binky will tell you straight out, it was not because his mother was the disciplinarian in the family. Binky does not have mommy issues and Binky will tell you in no uncertain terms.

 It is just that Binky feels compelled to make a comment every time Ann Coulter is mentioned in an article.

 That is it. Nothing more. Binky - mommy issues - no. And stop insinuating something else! Binky is not a troll. Binky does not make inflammatory statements. Binky does not have mommy issues. Binky can back up all of his statements. Well, except for the Oliver Stone dumb thing. But Binky is right about everything else including not having mommy issues dammit!

Sincerely,

a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.

Well, that was a pretty

Well, that was a pretty sane reaction.

Happy 4th, sport. 

Stone uses a disgraced

Stone uses a disgraced ex-President who was removed from office for criminal wrongdoing to argue that someone ELSE is an idiot. Talk about not computing. When did lib kooks like Stone become such Richard Nixon fans anyway?

When did lib kooks like

When did lib kooks like Stone become such Richard Nixon fans anyway?

I took that to sort of be half the point of Stone's offhand, a-propos-of-nothing joking around with Maher.

I just wish...

... that he'd purchase a haydite block to fill that gap in his front teeth.

Gap Opens on an Empty Cavern

I think that gap goes all the way to the back of his head. Sorta like David Letterman's.

that photo

He sure looks like the village idiot in that photo.

War on Drugs?

Hey Jason, when did the democrats War on Poverty begin? I still haven't seen an exit strategy on that one.

Well they do have an exit stategy

After they put us all in poverty,  they will change the name to pariody.

 

My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Hey there Jason

Jason, how's that State of Israel thing started under Truman working out? Oh, and how's that U.N. thing started by democrats (Truman again) in 1945 working out?  And how did that League of Nations thing started by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson work out for you guys -- oh, that's right is turned into the United Nations.  Yeah, that War on Poverty (Lyndon B. Johnson D-TX) has done well huh?  You Dems keep up the great work you're doing. 

Eyeroll for Oliver

Anyone who still buys the lie that Reagan was stupid and unengaged needs to go read the Reagan Diaries. I picked up the softcover edition for thirteen bucks at Walmart. The diaries are edited by Douglas Brinkley, by no means a conservative hagiographer. They reveal a man far more clear-minded and insightful than even the most clever of his enemies.

Which means he's waaaay over the heads of Stone and Maher...

subjective

anyone who CAN read has already learned this. It is the great thinkers of today... uhhhhh huh huh.... uhhh... hey Beavis... that believe the tripe of the MSM.   Oliver Stone is a historian as Dan Rather is honest...  "fake, but accurate"  

 Bill Maher is nothing more than a carnie barker... he will say ANYTHING to get ratings, he cares about nothing more than his own pocket. He will verbally attack from the safety of his studio any person place or thing that will get his name in the news. He is a human "bug light" that attracts insects or humans with insect sized brains. Too bad we can't put an electric fence around him and get rid of them the same way I do in the back yard.

Reagan Airport

More on Reagan Derangement Syndrome:

Politburo Mulls Airbrushing Reagan:  http://www.julescrittenden.com

"At Wednesday’s Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board meeting, chairman H.R. Crawford – a former District Council member and Marion Barry confidante – told fellow Board members that he has heard talk on Capitol Hill about yanking former President Ronald Reagan’s name off the local airport and returning it to its previous generic moniker: National Airport."

How about some "RDS" -

How about a different kind of "RDS" - After Reagan died, there was serious talk among legislative Republicans of replacing FDR's visage on the dime with Reagan's.

Does that work?  Can we just slap on "derangement syndrome" every time a politician we like is slighted or criticized in any way?

poor guy

someone give him a fix.

RB/411acrossamerica.com