Jump to content
The Education Forum

Washington Post article on Oliver Stone and "JFK"


Matt Allison
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surprisingly little of her actual interview in the article.  It does mention Looking Glass briefly.  Otherwise he and others mainly criticize the historical accuracy of JFK.  He says Stone called him "hard core" after they discussed the single bullet theory.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, compelling evidence has emerged suggesting that Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw was abetted and manipulated by intelligence agents in Moscow."--WaPo

The author of the "compelling evidence"in a 2003 article WaPo article, is someone named "Max Holl." This is Max Holland, a made CIA apologist and asset. The WaPo is citing Max Holland as proving compelling evidence the KGB provided a vital assist to Garrison. 

Also since then, it has emerged that Shaw was in fact receiving payments of the CIA, and was a CIA asset.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/11/22/how-moscow-undermined-the-warren-commission/4e30c89b-40c4-4f31-8a0d-32d3a76c8af9/?itid=lk_inline_manual_47

The recent WaPo article deals with none of the substance of JFK: Revisited

Sadly, we have to ask again: The Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC...why do they go all-girly on anything to do with the CIA?  

Less comfortably, why are the same publications defining America as harbor for armed and dangerous extremists by the millions and awash in malicious disinformation? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Started out so promising but then went down the usual roads….

“…. Johnson can be seen in silhouette, ostensibly agreeing to escalate the Vietnam conflict and cover up the truth of Kennedy’s death.“

I realize she’s a film critic but she quotes political writers who critique the film’s premise. So she should mention the above is historical fact now, thanks to the movie and resulting  ARRB.

And she quietly glosses over the CIA’s and WH’s illegal stonewalling of the last file releases. And never mentions one FACT from JFK Revisited.

The real thrust of the article and why it got past the Wapo censors?

Just keep repeating to yourself, it’s only a movie, it’s only a movie, and an old movie at that, did I mention it’s just a movie?….

 

 

 

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This woman was at Oliver's house for two days to do this piece of dismissive trivia.

Oliver wanted her to talk to me. 

I emailed her, but like Tim Weiner she never got in contact with me.

 

It’s yet another travesty in the never-ending travesties of MSM stories regarding JFKA, as you well know, Jim.

To quote the critics of the original movie and not talk to the person who wrote the follow-up documentary is the height of journalistic malfeasance. But it’s such a common occurrence in this case, it’d be comical if it wasn’t so damaging.

It’s obvious to me this is the story - and the only story - her editors at Wapo would allow on the ‘JFK’ anniversary and ostensibly ‘JFK Revisited.’

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it comes from the Washington Post.  So, it will be taken as gospel by most of their readers.  On the plus side at least a few of them might be piqued enough by the mention of Looking Glass to watch it and in turn become a little more educated regarding the search for the Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Ann Hornaday Washington Post article is crap--sophisticated CIA propaganda.  It's a subtle, rational sounding hit piece disguised as a serious review of Oliver Stone's work on the JFK assassination.  And why does Hornaday largely ignore the new film-- JFK Revisited?

Notice how Hornaday repeatedly misrepresents and denigrates the film, JFK, as "contrafactual" conspiracy mongering, while dodging any serious, accurate discussion of the damning evidence.    As an example, while celebrating the fact that Clay Shaw was promptly acquitted in the Garrison trial, she conveniently neglects to mention that Shaw committed blatant perjury in the trial, and that the evidence clearly indicates that he was, in fact, Clay Bertrand.  Nor does Hornady mention the evidence that Garrison was systematically harassed, threatened and defamed by the FBI and the CIA.

The clear sign that this article is CIA propaganda is the paragraph Ben Cole posted, (above) where Hornady rolls out the Tim Weiner propaganda memes from the recent Rolling Stone hit piece.

This article, like Tim Weiner's crap in Rolling Stone, and Alecia P. Long's crap in WaPo is clear evidence of Operation Mockingbird in action.

No wonder the CIA paid Jeff Bezos $640 million.

BTW, does anyone know if Hornaday was a Yale Bulldog?

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go back and forth on rankings, but the case remains for "JFK" being the greatest movie ever made. I could probably write a long thing on why, but let's just think about the fact that 30 years later an article like this shows up in the Post. Think about what that means. 

It seems it's still too difficult for MANY to step back and look at the film with an objective eye. But I knew after seeing it opening night in 1991 that it was an absolute masterpiece, an unprecedented achievement, and that opinion has only become more solidified since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This woman was at Oliver's house for two days to do this piece of dismissive trivia.

Oliver wanted her to talk to me. 

I emailed her, but like Tim Weiner she never got in contact with me.

 

Two days for this?  What a flaky hack.  Most of us would have gotten fired for such shoddy work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one more thing:

’JFK’ is ‘contrafactual’ but let’s ignore the facts plainly laid out in ‘JFK Revisited.’

As I said in this presentation that Jim kindly posted on his K&K site, the JFKA case is essentially a PR war with the CIA that has been going for decades:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/public-relations-and-the-jfk-case

Edited by Michaleen Kilroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mainstream/legacy/corporate media response to the new doc has been entirely predictable, although the Rolling Stone piece was surprisingly reactionary for the specific venue. I suspect this faction will hold the official line right to the bitter end.

In the wider spectrum of news and opinion, the weight of what is now understood as the post-ARRB established record has tilted the generalized understanding of what happened in 1963 in the other direction, and in a way which does not call up Mafia / Cubans / etc.  Counterpunch - once reliably sneering and contemptuous of “conspiracists” - has posted the fourth or fifth article in just the last few months which posits the JFKA as a high-level conspiracy. Jacob Hornberger again - “The Fear of Those Still-Secret CIA Records on the JFK Assassination”:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/23/the-fear-of-those-still-secret-cia-records-on-the-jfk-assassination/

“The JFK assassination is like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Imagine a really complicated puzzle that has 1000 small pieces to it. Your kids have lost 25 percent of the pieces. You decide to put the puzzle together anyway. You finish it. Even though you’ve only got 75 percent of it completed, you can still tell that it’s a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Then, you find several more pieces. You now have 80 percent of the pieces and you’re able to see the Eiffel Tower more clearly.

That’s the way it is with the Kennedy assassination. With around 75 percent of the pieces, one can see that this was a national-security state regime-change operation…”

What lone-nut theorists just do not want to confront is the fact that the little monster that was brought into existence to assassinate and regime-change foreign leaders and others turned inward to protect America from a president whose philosophy and policies, they were convinced, posed a grave threat to national security — a much graver threat, in fact, than those  other leaders posed who they assassinated or regime-changed… How can a domestic regime-change operation be inconceivable given that mindset on the part of the U.S. national-security establishment?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Oliver's JFK film is counterfactual is simply not accurate.

I did a scene by scene analysis of the first  hour of the film in my book The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, if anything that hour is understated in light of the new documents.

Another example, one of the main reasons I think the film was so vehemently attacked was because it said there would have been no Vietnam War if Kennedy had lived.

Everything in the film on that issue is correct and the declassified record, and later authors, have taken that issue even farther than the film  did.

As per the idea about a CIA/JCS plot, that is what John Newman is writing about as his working thesis in his six part series.

And when people see  JFK Revisited: Destiny Betrayed, which already played in Australia and Italy, you will see some very interesting information from Doug Horne on Curtis LeMay and Newman from Tennent Bagley.

After reading the article I can see why she did not contact me.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...