They should be able to pound out a movie pretty fast. Just take a script intended to be a Forest Gump sequel and rename the main character.
Uh, 9/11 was a positive? WTF? 
He means that 9/11 was the one time Bush was really able to look Presidential.
Bush did (initially) respond well to 9/11 and reassured the country when it needed reassuring. Of course, when he started blaming everything on 9/11, he kinda blew ay goodwill he had built up.
There was already a TV series: “Pinky and the Brain” with Shrub as Pinky and Rove as the Brain.
Not to bring this back into Great Debate terrortory, so I won’t elaborate, but 9/11 could easily be seen as a positive for W and his career.
Oliver Stone? Hatchet job.
Easily seen as? I would be shocked–SHOCKED!!–to find out that W DOESN’T get down on his bony knees every goddamned day and thank the gods for OBL.
Wouldn’t work. Gump was a good-hearted fool.
Don’t you mean Dumb and Dumber?
Wouldn’t it be more like Of Mice and Men, with Bush as Lennie and Cheney as Darth Vader?
First they’ll have to find a suitable ventriloquist to move the head stick and operate the levers for the eyes and mouth.
I would have never believed Josh Brolin could have pulled this off , but damn if he doesn’t look like a dead ringer. I am more than sure that JB can master the talent.
I have no idea whom the actress playing Pickles is. I have never heard of her.
I hear Stone is having trouble casting a Cheney. I would like to hereby suggest Richard Dreyfuss. Yes, scoff, so did my husband, but have you seen him lately? He is portly and bald. Yes, I know he is seen as a left wing autocrat, but art is art and a good actor will play what is given. Dreyfus for Cheney!
Oh, by the way, I love Oliver Stone.
Ask me about my (whatever the word is) about John Grisham.
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! Dreyfuss it is!
Now, as tempting as it’ll be to play him as lip-smackingly evil, Dreyfuss already played a hambone right-winger in The American President, so here’s hoping he plays things more subtley, unnervingly evil this time around. 
What can Oliver Stone show us about Bush that we haven’t already seen 100 times already?
We already know Bush’s story. What’s left for Oliver Stone to tell? That Bush is a small-minded boob with delusions of adequecy? Gee, that’s gonna be some stinging commentary there, Oliver. You’re really going to blow the lid off the Bush presidency.
Like I said upthread, it’s allegedly a satirical take, not a breathless expose. If any administration deserves to be satirized on the big screen, it’s this one.
Yeah, but satirizing WHAT? What satire can Oliver Stone do about Bush that hasn’t been done 100 times already on the Daily Show? Nobody bothers to satirize Bush anymore, because it’s pointless, he’s a lame duck and irrelevant. People aren’t interested in the stupid stuff he does, they just shake their heads sadly and check their watches.
How can you do an interesting satirical take on Bush? Seriously. I honestly can’t imagine any such thing being interesting for five minutes, let alone 2 hours. After a 1 minute SNL-style skit about Bush I’d be changing the channel, I can’t imagine volunteering for the punishment of a feature length movie.
At least Stone’s “Nixon” tried to portray Nixon as a flawed human being rather than a cardboard monster. Tried and failed. But what can you do with Bush? There’s no depth of self-loathing, envy, self-pity, resentment, and vindicitiveness that would make a movie about an asshole like Nixon potentially interesting.
The thing about Bush is that he has no depths. What you see is what you get. And we’ve seen it already. It would be like making a movie about the douchebag sales manager of a carpet store. Sure, he’s a clueless asshole that make his employees lives into a living hell. You could make a movie about the employees who have to deal with this asshole. But following around the block-headed manager all day? What would be the point?
Didn’t they already do a Dubya movie ?