In what can only be considered the view of a misguided dupe, Oliver Stone has released his pro-Hugo Chavez film, "South of the Border." The Socialist International (SI), the worldwide organization of social democratic, socialist and labor parties, reports that the oil-rich Chavez is suppressing dissent, interfering with press freedom, mismanaging the economy and destabilizing the region.

One might assume that SI would defend the Venezuelan ruler, but instead this organization argues Chavez is hurting the very poor people he has vowed to represent. Chavez does have his American supporters, such as Mark Floyd, diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission and Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the George Soros-supported Center for Economic and Policy Studies who also co-wrote Mr. Stone's screenplay. None, however, are as devoted to Chavez as Mr. Stone.

Mr. Stone has directed a festschrift that has only a passing relationship to the truth. He relies on the husband of a Chavez government employee who misrepresents many of the facts surrounding the Chavez government. Mr. Stone neglects to point out the 30 percent inflation rate, the highest on the continent, or the deepening recession brought about by his incompetent management. Chavez has even abandoned thousands of tons of food in shipping containers despite widespread food scarcity. Most noteworthy is the suppression of dissent and the intimidation of minorities such as the centuries-old Jewish community.

Caracas is characterized by a climate of insecurity and fear, conditions that Mr. Stone has chosen to ignore. Chavez has subverted democratic procedures while seizing control of the oil industry, electrical production, steel and construction industries, agriculture, telecommunications and banking. He exercises his power through the take-over of private businesses and manipulation of the election laws, unaffected by modulated criticism.

On the foreign policy front, Chavez is just as confrontational. He has been a leading supporter of FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and has signed several pacts for the exchange of military material with Iran. At an event for Syrian President Bashar al Assad, Chavez denounced Israel as a genocidal government that is "a common enemy," a murderous arm of the Yankee empire. Statements of this kind and continual harassment forced the head of the Jewish community, Rabbi Brenner, to leave Venezuela.

Yet despite the evidence and the arguments of eyewitnesses, Mr. Stone and Mr. Weisbrot insist the charges against Chavez are "nonsense." They contend that U.S. media have unfairly depicted Chavez as a dictator; oligarch and friend of terrorists, even though Chavez himself defended ties to FARC and military agreements with Iran.

Asked by the New York Times to explain factual inconsistencies in the film and the failure to acknowledge fair criticism of Chavez's human rights record, Tariq Ali, another scriptwriter, said, "It's hardly a secret that we support the other side. It's an opinionated documentary." Of course, he could have said it is a propaganda vehicle designed to sanitize the actions of the dictatorial Chavez regime.

This new Stone feature comes on the heels of Mr. Stone's usual anti-American refrain in film after film. According to Mr. Stone, Wall Street is filled with amoral, greedy entrepreneurs, the CIA plotted to kill President John F. Kennedy and the United States deserves to be defeated in war. Never mind that Mr. Stone has enjoyed wealth beyond the imagination of Croesus, undeserved fame and status for his obsessive conspiracy theories. He is an exemplar of a new breed: the critic who achieves fame and fortune for attacking the government that affords him freedom to attack.

If Mr. Stone were ever successful in achieving his goals, he would put himself in the position of irrelevance. It is a good thing for him that America remains resilient. If that weren't the case, Mr. Stone would soon be out of work.