James DiEugenio Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Where are all the writers who have their hatchets out for Oliver Stone whenever he makes a historical feature film? Spielberg and Hanks have made a picture that is such a pastiche of the Pentagon Papers case that its almost a fairy tale. It actually tries to make heroes and heroines of Graham and Bradlee, who are back benchers in this case. And it then actually makes up a scene so that Graham somehow felt betrayed by Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War! Ha Ha Ha What has happened to film criticism in this country? Anyway, here is the real story on this piece of pernicious cotton candy. Please post around if you can. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Where are all the writers who have their hatchets out for Oliver Stone whenever he makes a historical feature film? Spielberg and Hanks have made a picture that is such a pastiche of the Pentagon Papers case that its almost a fairy tale. It actually tries to make heroes and heroines of Graham and Bradlee, who are back benchers in this case. And it then actually makes up a scene so that Graham somehow felt betrayed by Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War! Ha Ha Ha What has happened to film criticism in this country? Anyway, here is the real story on this piece of pernicious cotton candy. Please post around if you can. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/ James, Oliver Stone?? With all due respect, do you mean the guy who has David Ferrie confessing to killing Kennedy in the film "JFK," and whose son is (or was) working for Putin's propaganda outlet, "RT"? -- Tommy Edited January 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: James, Oliver Stone?? With all due respect, do you mean the guy who has David Ferrie confessing to killing Kennedy in the film "JFK," and whose son is (or was) working for Putin's propaganda outlet, "RT"? -- Tommy what is "endlessly" fascinating is Lone Nut response to Oliver Stones movie, JFK. Nearly 30 years and the Marquette gang hasn't lost a step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 22, 2018 Author Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) TG, you had not one single comment on the review of the film I just posted. Thanks for staying on topic. As per your comments on Stone's film, I have never considered you even close to being an authority on the Garrison/New Orleans aspects of the case. Please let me know how many times you talked to Lou Ivon who actually did the interview with Ferrie that is the basis for the dialogue in the film. On the subjects of Ferrie and Putin, if I want to hear from you, I might as well read Edward Epstein. Anyways to get back on point after the attempted hijack, this film is a kind of posthumous coronation of Bradlee and Graham. When, in fact, they were involved in the whole Pentagon Papers affair for about two weeks. Yet the whole thing went on for three years. They were tangential. Graham in her autobiography only spends 12 pages on it, while her book is 500 pages long. As Floyd Abrams told me, that tells you how important it was to her. Dan Ellsberg, who is the real hero of the episode, is only in the film for about 10-15 minutes. When I interviewed Jim Goodale, who was the NY Times counsel, he told me the first draft of the script was even worse. Ellsberg was barely in the film at all. And they actually had Graham doing a speech before the Supreme Court. OMG. Then the film actually shows Graham being surprised at what McNamara had done in Vietnam under LBJ. When LBJ had told Graham about all of his escalation plans before he even escalated! That is because he wanted her newspaper on his side as he broke with Kennedy's policies. And she did so. As I pointed out, the Post even went after the Times for being critical of civilian deaths. And they attacked Morse and Gruening for opposing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Their reporter in Saigon, Braestrup, actually argued that the Tet offensive had failed, and was an American triumph. Which is what LBJ tried to say after also. Before he decided not to run again. This film is a real distortion of what the Pentagon Papers case was really about, and what the facts were. I mean, Ellsberg and Russo risked going to jail for a combined 150 years because of that nutty Nixon and his hatchet man John Mitchell. But you would never know that from this film. Anyway, that is what Spielberg and Hanks are like. They are really a part of the Establishment. And that is where they want to be. Don't upset the apple cart or push the envelope. Edited January 22, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) 51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: TG, you had not one single comment on the review of the film I just posted. Thanks for staying on topic. As per your comments on Stone's film, I have never considered you even close to being an authority on the Garrison/New Orleans aspects of the case. Please let me know how many times you talked to Lou Ivon who actually did the interview with Ferrie that is the basis for the dialogue in the film. On the subjects of Ferrie and Putin, if I want to hear from you, I might as well read Edward Epstein. Anyways to get back on point after the attempted hijack, this film is a kind of posthumous coronation of Bradlee and Graham. When, in fact, they were involved in the whole Pentagon Papers affair for about two weeks. Yet the whole thing went on for three years. They were tangential. Graham in her autobiography only spends 12 pages on it, while her book is 500 pages long. As Floyd Abrams told me, that tells you how important it was to her. Dan Ellsberg, who is the real hero of the episode, is only in the film for about 10-15 minutes. When I interviewed Jim Goodale, who was the NY Times counsel, he told me the first draft of the script was even worse. Ellsberg was barely in the film at all. And they actually had Graham doing a speech before the Supreme Court. OMG. Then the film actually shows Graham being surprised at what McNamara had done in Vietnam under LBJ. When LBJ had told Graham about all of his escalation plans before he even escalated! That is because he wanted her newspaper on his side as he broke with Kennedy's policies. And she did so. As I pointed out, the Post even went after the Times for being critical of civilian deaths. And they attacked Morse and Gruening for opposing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Their reporter in Saigon, Braestrup, actually argued that the Tet offensive had failed, and was an American triumph. Which is what LBJ tried to say after also. Before he decided not to run again. This film is a real distortion of what the Pentagon Papers case was really about, and what the facts were. I mean, Ellsberg and Russo risked going to jail for a combined 150 years because of that nutty Nixon and his hatchet man John Mitchell. But you would never know that from this film. Anyway, that is what Spielberg and Hanks are like. They are really a part of the Establishment. And that is where they want to be. Don't upset the apple cart or push the envelope. James, With all due respect, you're the one who mentioned OLIVER "Fast And Loose With The Facts" STONE in your intro. You seem to idolize him, and I was simply pointing out that in his film, "JFK", he has David Ferrie blurt out a confession to Garrison. Did Ferrie really do that? -- Tommy PS Just a minor detail, but when I asked Alvin B. (who called me out of the blue one day to tell me that the storm they drove through that night from New Orleans to Houston wasn't all that bad) whether or not Ferrie swore a lot, he said "No." Edited January 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) James, When you spoke with Lou Ivon, did you ask about "Spanish Trace" / "The Shepherd"? You know, the guy, with a scar above his left eyebrow, seen monitoring LHO in a couple of places on 7/9/63? -- Tommy Edited January 22, 2018 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 When Bradlee died, a journalist friend reprimanded me for making somewhat-less-than-glowing remarks about him due to his intelligence background as well as the entire Post's cozy relationship with the CIA. She noted the historic work he did on the Pentagon Papers. I remember thinking at the time that anything Bradlee did or didn't do on the Pentagon Papers was likely more related to his desire to stick it to someone on behalf of the intelligence community than it was a desire to serve journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 22, 2018 Author Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) As I noted in the review, Bradlee wanted the Pentagon Papers for one reason, because the NY Times had beat him to them. And his ambition was always to be equal to the NYT. Which tells us a lot about Bradlee of course. And, BTW, in the PP there is a chapter on Phased Withdrawal 1963-64. If Bradlee really was JFK's friend, you would have thought he would have published that and made it a front page story. He did not. In fact, even when his crappy book, Conversations with Kennedy, was published years later, he still did not even mention it. In that book he actually wrote that foreign policy really was not JFK's field of interest or expertise. Which is nothing but a steaming pile of BS. And we all know of course, how Bradlee never did a thing to try and expose the cover up around his friend's assassination. In fact, he actually helped strengthen it. And then he had his hit man, Ron Kessler, do a hatchet job on Bill Harper, the famed criminalist, to cover up the RFK case. Bradlee and Graham, as I note in the review, actually supported LBJ's escalations all the way up to the Tet offensive. And if you can comprehend it, Graham voted for Nixon in 1972. After the PP case and after the Watergate break in. But that is Washington. And this film will do even more now to make Graham some kind of heroine for journalism. Which is another joke. She told Bradlee to sit it out during Iran/Contra because she liked the Reagans. When that scandal, if you ask me, was even worse than Watergate. Edited January 22, 2018 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 Jim, Is there a scene in the movie where Graham gets something caught in a wringer? If so, I'll be sure to go see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 22, 2018 Author Share Posted January 22, 2018 LOL, a good one Ron. Boy, Mitchell got that one wrong did he not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 22, 2018 Author Share Posted January 22, 2018 But if you read the review, you will see that Mitchell did not even do any research before he gave Nixon an opinion on the PP and prior restraint. These were two lawyers who got the law all wrong. Just like Nixon got Vietnam all wrong. I mean first Burns and Novick, and if that was not bad enough, now this one. What a society we live in. Remember Santayana's great quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Where are all the writers who have their hatchets out for Oliver Stone whenever he makes a historical feature film? Spielberg and Hanks have made a picture that is such a pastiche of the Pentagon Papers case that its almost a fairy tale. It actually tries to make heroes and heroines of Graham and Bradlee, who are back benchers in this case. And it then actually makes up a scene so that Graham somehow felt betrayed by Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War! Ha Ha Ha What has happened to film criticism in this country? Anyway, here is the real story on this piece of pernicious cotton candy. Please post around if you can. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/22/the-post-and-the-pentagon-papers/ James, It's a wonderful film review, but what does it have to do with the JFK Assassination? -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: James, Oliver Stone?? With all due respect, do you mean the guy who has David Ferrie confessing to killing Kennedy in the film "JFK," and whose son is (or was) working for Putin's propaganda outlet, "RT"? -- Tommy So I know the film well. You state Mr. Stone protrays David Ferrie "confessing to killing Kennedy in the film 'JFK'. . . " Yawn, ok, being a movie buff, well with my background one can understand, please state where he confesses to killing JFK in the film. I often hear misrepresentations of what was said or portrayed which in fact are often inaccurate. I went and looked at the dialogue just for fun, I dont see where he says that anywhere in the film. I think you might want to go back and re-watch the moview. He says as follows -please note I cleaned up the tough language: I suppose I could use a pot of hot coffee and a few packs of Luckys. Anything new? Who are you scared of? Everybody. The Agency, mob, Cubans. Follow the Cubans. Check them out. Here. In Miami. Dallas. Check out Eladio del Valle. He was my paymaster when I flew missions into Cuba. You're on the right track. Don't write this down! I ain't cooperating with no one! There's a death warrant for me! Don't you get it? Damn! Wait a minute! You ain't bugged, are you? Son of a b...h, Lou! Are you? I play square. No bugs. I'd love you to go on the record, but I'm in no hurry. I haven't slept since that article. -Why'd you get me involved? -Did we involve you? Or did Shaw? C....sucking f...ot. He got me by the balls. -What do you mean? -Photographs, compromising stuff. He'll use them, too. Agency plays for keeps. Oswald was in my Civil Air Patrol unit. I taught him everything. He was a wannabe. No one liked him. Thought he was a snitch. But I treated him good. He wanted his kid to grow up with a chance. What's this? What's going on? Don't let him in. No one's coming in here. Black. Give it to me. Black. My neck is killing me. I've had cancer for years. Been working with mice to find a cure. Did you work for the CIA? You sound like it's a remote experience in ancient history. You don't leave the Agency. -Once you're in, they got you for life. -And Shaw? Shaw's an untouchable. Highest clearance. Shaw, Oswald, the Cubans, all Agency. Ruby? Jack was a pimp. A bagman for the Dallas mob. Ran guns to Castro when he was on our side. Castro was almost with us till we tried to whack him. Everybody keeps flipping sides. It's fun and games. -How do the mob figure in this? -They're Agency too. The CIA and the Mafia worked together for years trying to whack out the beard. There's more to this than you could dream! Check out something called "Operation Mongoose." Government, Pentagon stuff. They're in charge. But who pulls whose chain? Who knows? "Oh, what a deadly web we weave when we practice to deceive." Who killed the President? Why don't you f....king stop it? Sh...t! This is too big for you, you know that? Who did the President? F....k! It's a mystery. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The shooters don't even know! Don't you get it? F...k, man! I can't keep talking like this! They'll f....ng kill me! I'll f....ng die! Son of a b...h! It's all right. I don't know what happened. F...k! All I wanted in the world... ...was to be a Catholic priest. Live in a monastery. Pray. Serve God. I had... ...one terrible f....king weakness. And they defrocked me! Then I started to lose everything. You'll be okay, Dave. Just talk to us on the record. We'll protect you. They'll get to you too. They'll destroy you. They're untouchable. I'm so f....king exhausted, I can't see straight. Edited January 22, 2018 by Cory Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 22, 2018 Share Posted January 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: So I know the film well. You state Mr. Stone protrays David Ferrie "confessing to killing Kennedy in the film 'JFL'. . . " Yawn, ok, being a movie buff, well with my background one can understand, please state where he confesses to killing JFK in the film. I often hear misrepresentations of what was said or portrayed which in fact are often inaccurate. I went and looked at the dialogue just for fun, I dont see where he says that anywhere in the film. I think you might want to go back and re-watch the moview. He says as follows -please note I cleaned up the tough language: I suppose I could use a pot of hot coffee and a few packs of Luckys. Anything new? Who are you scared of? Everybody. The Agency, mob, Cubans. Follow the Cubans. Check them out. Here. In Miami. Dallas. Check out Eladio del Valle. He was my paymaster when I flew missions into Cuba. You're on the right track. Don't write this down! I ain't cooperating with no one! There's a death warrant for me! Don't you get it? Damn! Wait a minute! You ain't bugged, are you? Son of a b...h, Lou! Are you? I play square. No bugs. I'd love you to go on the record, but I'm in no hurry. I haven't slept since that article. -Why'd you get me involved? -Did we involve you? Or did Shaw? C....sucking f...ot. He got me by the balls. -What do you mean? -Photographs, compromising stuff. He'll use them, too. Agency plays for keeps. Oswald was in my Civil Air Patrol unit. I taught him everything. He was a wannabe. No one liked him. Thought he was a snitch. But I treated him good. He wanted his kid to grow up with a chance. What's this? What's going on? Don't let him in. No one's coming in here. Black. Give it to me. Black. My neck is killing me. I've had cancer for years. Been working with mice to find a cure. Did you work for the CIA? You sound like it's a remote experience in ancient history. You don't leave the Agency. -Once you're in, they got you for life. -And Shaw? Shaw's an untouchable. Highest clearance. Shaw, Oswald, the Cubans, all Agency. Ruby? Jack was a pimp. A bagman for the Dallas mob. Ran guns to Castro when he was on our side. Castro was almost with us till we tried to whack him. Everybody keeps flipping sides. It's fun and games. -How do the mob figure in this? -They're Agency too. The CIA and the Mafia worked together for years trying to whack out the beard. There's more to this than you could dream! Check out something called "Operation Mongoose." Government, Pentagon stuff. They're in charge. But who pulls whose chain? Who knows? "Oh, what a deadly web we weave when we practice to deceive." Who killed the President? Why don't you f....king stop it? Sh...t! This is too big for you, you know that? Who did the President? F....k! It's a mystery. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The shooters don't even know! Don't you get it? F...k, man! I can't keep talking like this! They'll f....ng kill me! I'll f....ng die! Son of a b...h! It's all right. I don't know what happened. F...k! All I wanted in the world... ...was to be a Catholic priest. Live in a monastery. Pray. Serve God. I had... ...one terrible f....king weakness. And they defrocked me! Then I started to lose everything. You'll be okay, Dave. Just talk to us on the record. We'll protect you. They'll get to you too. They'll destroy you. They're untouchable. I'm so f....king exhausted, I can't see straight. Hmm Sounds as though Dave is telling Green Giant he didn't have anything to do with it. (sarcasm) -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 23, 2018 Author Share Posted January 23, 2018 Pages 378-81, of Destiny Betrayed, second edition, shows what I still think is the best evidence for Vietnam and Dulles being part of the JFK case. If you think that Vietnam has nothing to do with it, then this is superfluous. But if its superfluous, why try and hijack the thread? There are others here that really are superfluous like JFK's mythological "first marriage". Thanks Cory, but I already analyzed this at length, it something that the phony Epstein started https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein As I said, TG knows next to nothing about New Orleans/Garrison, and it appears he knows even less about JFK and Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now