Finally Watched Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited"

[Michael T. Griffith]

This week I finally got around to watching Oliver Stone's new documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. I had put off watching it because I feared it would be the same frustrating 50/20/30 mix of good information, exaggeration, and erroneous information that his movie JFK was. I was very pleasantly surprised to see that it is virtually inerrant and also entertaining. It is rock solid on every issue relating to the assassination.

I was also pleased to see that it is largely devoid of liberal political preaching. Even its segment on JFK and Vietnam is not abrasively liberal.

[Gerry Down]

I was also pleased to see that it is largely devoid of liberal political preaching. Even its segment on JFK and Vietnam is not abrasively liberal.

I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.

I think Oliver Stone is far left, but I don't know about Jim D.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I think that was because Oliver Stone and Jim D are not far left liberals. I think they might even be considered somewhat conservative.

If you think those people are "conservative" then I'm not sure what political yardstick you are using? I guess you can argue the so-called "horseshoe theory" of politics; that is the far right and the far left sort of merge or come together in some areas. So someone on the hard left resembles someone on the hard right.

Jim Garrison called himself a "libertarian conservative" but his view of America, of who he thought ran the country (the "war state"), sounded exactly like that of the New Left of the 1970s, of the anti-American leftwing, and the "woke" left of today, that views the American project as thoroughly corrupt.

Oliver Stone produced a movie for HBO - "The Untold History of the United States" - that argued that the Cold War was caused solely by the policies of the US, that if we had elected Henry Wallace instead of Harry Truman in 1948 that none of the subsequent conflict would have followed. Yes, poor Uncle Joe Stalin never had a chance <g>.  That's a left wing view of US/Soviet relations. It's even further left than what a Chomsky or Zinn said. They at least were critical of both sides.

Both Stone and the DiEugenio are, in my view, on the political left. I have no idea what "conservative" view they hold. Could you give us an example?

[Gerry Down]

If you think those people are "conservative" then I'm not sure what political yardstick you are using? I guess you can argue the so-called "horseshoe theory" of politics; that is the far right and the far left sort of merge or come together in some areas. So someone on the hard left resembles someone on the hard right.

Jim Garrison called himself a "libertarian conservative" but his view of America, of who he thought ran the country (the "war state"), sounded exactly like that of the New Left of the 1970s, of the anti-American leftwing, and the "woke" left of today, that views the American project as thoroughly corrupt.

Oliver Stone produced a movie for HBO - "The Untold History of the United States" - that argued that the Cold War was caused solely by the policies of the US, that if we had elected Henry Wallace instead of Harry Truman in 1948 that none of the subsequent conflict would have followed. Yes, poor Uncle Joe Stalin never had a chance <g>.  That's a left wing view of US/Soviet relations. It's even further left than what a Chomsky or Zinn said. They at least were critical of both sides.

Both Stone and the DiEugenio are, in my view, on the political left. I have no idea what "conservative" view they hold. Could you give us an example?

Well Stone seems mildly in favor of Russia and Putin. Russia holds conservative views on many things such as LGBT issues. That's why I thought Stone might be somewhat conservative.

[Tim Nickerson]

It is rock solid on every issue relating to the assassination.

The rock is plaster of paris. Pretty much every claim made in the film has been thoroughly destroyed by Fred Litwin, Steve Roe, and others.

[Richard Smith]

In the 1960s through a decade ago, liberals were skeptical of the government.  Particularly such institutions as the FBI and military.  Mostly due to Vietnam and Watergate.  They promoted free speech even of extreme views and were skeptical of the government (even LBJ's administration) while conservatives tended to support the status quo.  There has been a sea change in the present day.  Now the leftists are lock step with the FBI and anything espoused by left wing politicians.  There is a Stasi-like compliance to authority fueled by the media and social media propaganda.  No one dares to question what they are told.  If they do so, they are destroyed.  Stone may no longer fit easily into the same leftist mold that existed in the past.  He is a complete krank but his questioning of the government rather than blind compliance is commendable even if his conclusions are wrong.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In the 1960s through a decade ago, liberals were skeptical of the government.  Particularly such institutions as the FBI and military.  Mostly due to Vietnam and Watergate.  They promoted free speech even of extreme views and were skeptical of the government (even LBJ's administration) while conservatives tended to support the status quo.  There has been a sea change in the present day.  Now the leftists are lock step with the FBI and anything espoused by left wing politicians.  There is a Stasi-like compliance to authority fueled by the media and social media propaganda.  No one dares to question what they are told.  If they do so, they are destroyed.  Stone may no longer fit easily into the same leftist mold that existed in the past.  He is a complete krank but his questioning of the government rather than blind compliance is commendable even if his conclusions are wrong.

Isn't it just simply that people tend to lose their skepticism of government (or becomes supporters of it) when they or their side is exercising that power? Conservatives were defenders of the FBI, of the military, of the national security state during the Cold War but have only recently questioned those institutions as Democrats and liberals began to control them. Hoover's FBI is now Comey's FBI and so on. When universities were suppressing radical left views conservatives tended to support that. Now it's the left suppressing views and conservatives are (rightly) upset. It's all tribal politics now.

As to Stone: But he doesn't question governments; he only questions the US (or western) governments. He's been an apologist for decades for the Castros and the Chavezs and other authoritarian governments that are hostile to the US. His rule is that if they oppose the US - or the US opposes them - then they must be defended. He really does view the US as a thoroughly corrupt country - he calls the US the "wild beast" that must be tamed. And if a government, no matter how corrupt it is, opposes the US then he'll defend it. Go watch his HBO movie on the history of the US. He believes that the Cold Was was caused solely by the US and that if we had elected Henry Wallace none of that conflict would have followed. Stalin gets a pass.

BTW, to relate this to the assassination: One of Wallace's top advisers in his presidential campaign was John Abt. Yes, that John Abt.