The day of the locos...

Wed, 09/09/2009 - 2:33pm

Yes, "Morning Joe" thought the hot story out of the Venice Film Festival was the footage of an exuberant gay Italian man stripping down and begging for a kiss from George Clooney. But they missed the bigger story. Perhaps they were too dazzled by the flashbulbs or their reporter was unable to make his way through the fawning, screeching crowds of fans. But there, upstaging the canals and the pigeons of St. Marks was Hollywood's newest hunk, Hugo Chavez. And just like Clooney, he had his retinue of crazed admirers. In Chavez's case however, the heavy-breathing was coming from director Oliver Stone, who was in town to promote his latest labor of love, a valentine to Chavez called "South of the Border." 

And you thought George W. Bush was Yale's most embarrassing graduate... 

This new film -- which is not, incidentally, named after the South Carolina roadside tourist trap of the same name -- builds on Stone's unwitting reputation as a master of historical fiction. Whereas some filmmakers are known for their camera work or story-telling, Stone is best known for his inability to separate fact from fairy-tale. First, came JFK, which provided the same view of the Kennedy assassination you would get after huffing glue while watching the Zapruder film. Other fantasies made their way into his movies on Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Appropriately, therefore, the best of all summaries of his worldview came in the description of his "single plane theory" of the 9/11 attacks as reported by the Onion. (Given Stone's track record, the fact that it is completely made up is precisely the reason it should be treated as the truth.) 

Here's an excerpt of Time's review of the film:

Every step of the way, Stone is by, and on, on the President's side. He raises no tough issues, some of which are summarized in Amnesty International's 2009 report on Venezuela: "Attacks on journalists were widespread. Human-rights defenders continued to suffer harassment. Prison conditions provoked hunger strikes in facilities across the country." Referring to the 2006 election in which Chávez won a third term, Stone tells viewers that "90% of the media was opposed to him," and yet he prevailed. "There is a lesson to be learned," Stone says. Yes: support the man in power, or your newspaper, radio station or TV network may be in jeopardy.

According to Variety, Stone said, ""You can't get a fair hearing for Chavez. It's an outrageous caricature they've drawn of him in the Western press."

Yes. Outrageous. Let's just take a few items of Chavez news from around the world that have crossed the wires in just the past couple days and draw our own conclusions, shall we?

Let's start with the mildly comic. In Belarus, Chavez met with President Alexander Lukashenko (the White Russian version of a caudillo). There, according to AFP:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday boasted of his good ties with fellow Western critic Belarus, even suggesting the two countries could become part of a Soviet-style union.

Chavez held talks in Minsk with his Belarussian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko marked by a chummy bonhomie that saw the pair also propose they travel the length and breadth of Venezuela in the near future.

"We need to create a new union of republics," Chavez told Lukashenko, according to a statement from the Belarussian presidency.

Today, in moves that are not so laughable, Chavez will meet with Russian officials where he is expected to discuss further arms sales, military cooperation and energy deals.

More ominously, today Chavez also stirred up a torrent of controversy when he accused Israel of genocide.

The question is not whether the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians. They're doing it openly," Chavez said in an interview with Le Figaro published on Wednesday.

The Venezuelan president, who has just completed a tour of Middle Eastern and Arab countries, brushed aside Israeli assertions that its attack on Gaza was a response to rocket fire from Islamist group Hamas which rules the coastal enclave.

"What was it if not genocide? ... The Israelis were looking for an excuse to exterminate the Palestinians," Chavez said, adding that sanctions should have been slapped on Israel.

While perhaps Stone would agree with these rants (and while he might disagree with Elliot Abrams's excellent piece in yesterday's Washington Post taking former President Jimmy Carter to task for his similarly one-sided, overstated and distorted views), his past record of using and abusing the truth like other directors do starlets suggests that he might not dig far enough into the facts to recognize that his film's hero is deeply in bed with some of the very worst of the Middle East's bad actors. 

Fortunately for the rest of us, there is the very thoughtful and profoundly disturbing column by Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau in yesterday's Wall Street Journal detailing a growing case that Chavez and the Iranians are up to the worst kind of no good in this neighborhood. (Connecting the dots between Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Chavez's views is very easy when you do a little more research than Stone did.) Morgenthau writes:

Why is Hugo Chávez willing to open up his country to a foreign nation with little shared history or culture? I believe it is because his regime is bent on becoming a regional power, and is fanatical in its approach to dealing with the U.S. The diplomatic overture of President Barack Obama in shaking Mr. Chávez's hand in April at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago is no reason to assume the threat has diminished. In fact, with the groundwork laid years ago, we are entering a period where the fruits of the Iran-Venezuela bond will begin to ripen.

That means two of the world's most dangerous regimes, the self-described "axis of unity," will be acting together in our backyard on the development of nuclear and missile technology. And it seems that terrorist groups have found the perfect operating ground for training and planning, and financing their activities through narco-trafficking.

His theory is supported not only by the evidence outlined in his article but also by statements earlier this week that Chavez intended to provide oil to Iran in the event the world's leading powers attempt to impose an embargo on the country should it continue to pursue its nuclear weapons ambitions. The Iranian intransigence could put the U.S. on a collision course not only with Tehran but with suppliers like Chavez -- a fact which could delay his getting a star on Hollywood's walk of fame indefinitely as well as causing a real foreign policy headache for the Obama administration.

However, there are always two sides to every story (at least ... around the dinner table in my house growing up there were typically many more than that). And as dark as is the picture of Iranian-Venezuelan cooperation painted by Morgenthau there will always be someone who sees the happy Hollywood ending to such collaborations. And of course, for that we can always turn to Stone. Because according to The Guardian, Chavez's Leni Riefenstahl is currently planning as an encore "an interview film with Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Update: We just heard from Willie Geist of "Morning Joe" who noted that they did their takedown of Chavez and Stone earlier this week. I should have known that Geist, who has one of television's best B.S. detectors and, even rarer, a great sense of humor, would never have let this story slip through the cracks.

FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images

( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Well done.

Calling out Stone, the nutjob, for his irresponsible hagiographies of brutal dictators is a feather in your cap, Mr. Rothkopf. Oliver Stone has been an embarrassment to cinema and our nation since he went off the rails after Platoon. (It's a shame, too, because Salvador was a good, if flawed, movie.)

Don't forget Stone's fanboy love letter to Fidel, Commandante, from a few years ago.

Fact is that Oliver Stone really never met a communist he didn't like. Can't wait for his fawning biopic of Pol Pot.

When I read about Chavez's

When I read about Chavez's friendship with Ahmadinejad years ago I noted that clearly the man has even less shame than the average politician. Considering his recent friendly comments towards Russia I think he not only has no shame, but he is doing his best to actively show this to the entire world. As a result I have difficulty feeling any respect towards Venezuela, ignoring potential power. Brazil can be respected, my dislike of Lula set aside he has shown himself to be far more respectable than Chavez and less prone to wild displays of grandeur. Venezuela however will have to work long and hard to ever get to what it should have been five years ago.

support the man in power, or

support the man in power, or your newspaper, radio station or TV network may be in jeopardy.
That is 100% true, was 9 radio stations close and the news is coming for 29 more, for the next days,and one TV station RCR, close 2 years ago..
and 2.246 people in jeoparty because they no like the comunism Castrista.

Loonies to the Left, Loonies to the Right -

Chavez is no George Washington.

Neither is he Idi Amin.

Stone's loose relationship with reality is easily matched by the loose canons of the right - only there are more of them.

I begin to suspect Rothkopf when he cites a satirical fiction from the Onion as if it were a factual report. When he references Eliot Abrams and anything from the op-ed section of the Wall Street Journal as exemplars of unbiased sources, I conclude his judgement is shot.

And Rothkopf caps it off by declaring Chavez's Venzuela as one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Yeah - just like Grenada was a threat to the Western Hemisphere.

Chavez is a no friend of democracy and is mismanaging the Venezuelan economy. But there is an element of truth in what Stone said, "You can't get a fair hearing for Chavez. It's an outrageous caricature they've drawn of him in the Western press." Most US jounralists apparently identify with their middle-class counterparts in Venezuela, while Chavez made the error of first attending to the needs of the poor. Unforgivable!

Can't tell your left from your right

Dear Mohair,

It was the Reagan administration that defended Pol Pot and tried to seat representatives of the Kyhmer Roughe in the UN rather than the regime that replaced them. A reliable lefty like Stone would have nothing to do with them.

Rothkopf's rants and ridiculous ramblings

The concerns referred to by the normally comical blogger Rothkopf today, refer to Iran and Venezuela "in our backyard". He quoted Robert Morgenthau, who sees Venezuelans and Iranians under every rock. This “in our backyard” comment must be seen as a drop in the bucket when compared to the US military presence throughout the world, currently 750 bases isn't it? Isn't that called paranoia? Let's hit Venezuela with a 50 year embargo like Cuba. No, we need the oil.
With the treatment that has been dished out by US administrations over the past 40 years in the South American geography, there is not one country that wouldn't host a movement against US pressure-cooker 'diplomatic' policy if they weren't either hostage to US economic blackmail or military threats. And when we see our blogger Rothkopf, who until today had some degree of credibility, refer to something written by Elliot Abrams's ("excellent piece") as a serious source of information, it's time for him to find another career. His serious blogging just concluded.
Quoting a man like Abrams is akin to giving sainthood to the likes of Otto Reich, John Negroponte and Dick Cheney with their colourful, nay questionable careers, so much have they individually contributed to the current low regard that most countries in the world have for the US. What short memories we have. No doubt you would have also extolled the virtue of the article by Otto Reich on Venezuela a week or so ago as well. Where are your values?
Then you went on to ridicule Chavez for stating that the Israelis want to 'exterminate the Palestinians'. Find any person who has an ounce of intelligence that doesn't agree completely with that statement and I will be very surprised. Where have you been for the past 30 years? What would he call it....ethnic cleansing? Yes, that too. Apartheid? You choose.
Really, Mr. Rothkopf, try and be a little discerning with your reference sources. Find something worthwhile to write about such as the disgraceful and blatant lying comments by a large percentage of your elected representatives on the subject of health recently or the value of a vote on the influence of AIPAC on the corrupt politicians in the Congress, or the quite obvious weakness of Obama in his dealings with the Israeli housing expansion. They all have a little more pith and moment than giving a small South American leader a dose of your vitriol, apparently the current US journalistic sport, therefore fashionable for those who have nothing better to do.
If he does worry you that much, stop buying his oil.
You seem to have become the voice of specific lobby groups and have lost your value as a credible, free-thinking blogger, if you ever really had that distinction.
‘The day of the locos', indeed.

You could of course also take

You could of course also take that rhetoric to its conclusion and state that Chavez should stop exporting to the United States - oh wait the U.S is the only nation equipped to buy from Venezuela! A bit hard to stop selling when there's only one customer who actually can buy.

Or for the Palestinians you could of course look at the millions dead - oh wait no death camps so far! Plenty of casualties from poorly thought out attacks yes, millions dead from a government policy of extermination no.

Enlightening.

Except not as attractive. Slap some sporty boots on her and she could blitzkrieg my Maginot Line any day.

BS

Hey Rothkopf, you are missing the point of Chavez and his democratically approved reforms, you no doubt choose to look the other way and peddle lies and myths.

"That means two of the world's most dangerous regimes, the self-described "axis of unity," will be acting together in our backyard on the development of nuclear and missile technology. And it seems that terrorist groups have found the perfect operating ground for training and planning, and financing their activities through narco-trafficking."

oh please, what makes Venezuela so dangerous? There is not an ounce of evidence of the narco-trafficking, simply saying it enough times does not make it so . Why has the US just put 6 new military bases in Colombia, is the USA again preparing to over throw another democratically elected government?
Chavez is seeking to unite LAtin America, redirect oil dollars towards the poor and the public/community sphere. This is what actually annoys you and the US media. Chavez is undertaking a revolution against the corporate elite, to which Globovision, RCA, Fox, NY Times etc.. all belong. To this extent, Venezuela is a threat to US ecnomic and political power. The US though is a threat to democracy (has been shown in the past in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia) and obviously wish to destablise and undo the democratic will of the people of Latin America who have ushered in a new age of Leftist leaders and initiatives.
Regardless of what you think about Oliver Stone and his movies (I for one am not a fan) at least he is giving another side of Chavez that you do not see in the US because of your tawdry and elitist press. Face it, as if you would give a thumbs up to any Chavez doc that doesnt paint him as a dictatorial, terrorist wooing anti semite.

You are an absolute tool

Perhaps you should look at

Perhaps you should look at numbers. The United States isn't putting in new bases, the United States is using six already existing bases (which is still less than what we legally could) in actions against drug cartels and FARC. It's a bit hard to overthrow another government with just a few bases.

As for trafficking, there actually is evidence. Venezuelan weapons have been found wielded by FARC, FARC computers have contained have contained references to funds from Venezuela (though admittedly that hasn't been absolutely proven yet), and it isn't even a secret that FARC funds itself (as do all others) through drugs.

Lastly on Chavez and democracy, bit interesting for a man so focused on democracy to focus so heavily on rule by decree*.

*Passed in 2007 by his General Assembly, set to last 18 months.

Rothkopf's commandments

Chavez's great sin is his intent to sell gasoline to Iran. If Chavez were to trade gasoline with Eskimos, Joe Kennedy, or Belgians, Rothkopf would not care a lick. But since Chavez is dealing with Iran, Rothkopf believes America must take action.

Mr. Rothkopf, Americans have learned alot since the invasion of Iraq. Walt and Mearsheimer's outstanding book has opened many peoples eyes to the fact that Israeli friendly Americans want our military to wage war upon the enemies of Israel. We have learned that these wars cost alot of money and are very bloody. We have also learned to ignore or ridicule the writings of Israeli-firsters like yourself, Jeffrey Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer.

Well said, pole

Whichever way one tries to slant their writings, a smell of the real man always comes through as in the case with Rothkopf. I thought with his background, he would be able to disguise his obvious dislike of so many things, too many to list.
One should look in future a little more keenly at his attempts at humourous writings and see what are the underlying themes. They'll be there. He can't help himself.
It is sad that so many bloggers wear blinkers which restricts their ability to remember the past as well as see anything outside a very narrow filed of vision, forward.
Anyone who can comment on anything South American without encompassing the failures and right wing attitudes of past Presidents and their evil minions, minions who can now be printed in publications like Foreign Policy and be lauded by the likes of Mr. Rothkopf, according them a degree of credibility they should never justify and which could only happen in the US where almost fifty percent of the people still vote for extremist policies such as war.
When we reach the point when war is abhorrent to the majority, where health care for all is above party politics, where the Exxons of this world are closed down based on their irresponsibility (see Alaska), where educations is the right of everyone, not just the wealthy, where finance brokers and sharemarket traders can elicit such large profits from the 'system' while the same banks foreclose on the poor, then we would have gone a long way to having developed a set of values worthy of some pain and suffering. Currently, partisan politics stops America from ever realising its potential and one can only conclude that the US Empire is well on the downslope and increasing speed, daily.
It need not have been this way.