quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
Wait, your friend thinks the US isn't a democracy anymore because MM is outspoken about his political views?

And you've known this guy for how long?

---

It's more of "his views hobble and hinder, and sometimes destroy the progress of democracy". Strangely, he blames Clinton for 9/11.

And I've known him since high school. Frankly, I don't really bother with his political views that much. Of course he lurks around here, he just can't register because he has a Yahoo! account. He does have some choice words over CC's regulations regarding registration.

TSN: My friend supports the Patriot Act (or at least a rather extreme interpretation of it). That according to him is enough to charge MM with crimes against the state.

He's formerly from Philadelphia, BTW.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Strangely? The man did have more than one opportunity to eliminate our best pal Osama, AND knew he was a threat, which I don't think you can say about any prior president. I'm not saying I blame Clinton, I'm not saying Bush or anyone else is better, I'm just saying it's not that strange.
 

---

Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
 
Which opportunities?

I mean, if you can't get him now with a significant resource hunting him, why do you feel that he could have been taken out 4+ years ago?

I'm not defending clinton, but please, explain.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saltah'na:
Of course he lurks around here, he just can't register because he has a Yahoo! account. He does have some choice words over CC's regulations regarding registration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Omega:
I'm not saying I blame Clinton, I'm not saying Bush or anyone else is better

---

quote:

---

My friend supports the Patriot Act (or at least a rather extreme interpretation of it). That according to him is enough to charge MM with crimes against the state.

---

quote:

---

Hoser-ain in the pokey?

---

LOL
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
"The dude who runs the forum needs a lesson about civil liberties and the right of free speech on the internet."

The "fuck"?

Sooo, he thinks Moore is DESTROYING democracy by exercising his RIGHT of free speech publically, but reviles Charles for blocking free webmail addresses on a PRIVATELY OPERATED board where that right is CURTAILED.

Whatever it is your friend has, is it contagious?
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
Remind your friend that Clinton thwarted MANY terrorist attacks, some on American soil, that could have killed thousands of people. Then see what his rebuttal is.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
But wear an apron. Mere mention of the C-word in front of right-wing nutjobs makes their heads explode.
 

---

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
 
Also remind your friend that the Nile is a river in Egypt, and the he most likely suffers from a heavy case of 'the Nile' visa vi current events.

When he asks you what the fuck you mean by "the Nile" and "visa vi", thump him with the phone book I sent to you last week, and I'll be waiting with a pickup-truck out back. Make sure no one sees you.
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Which opportunities? I mean, if you can't get him now with a significant resource hunting him, why do you feel that he could have been taken out 4+ years ago?

Unless stories have changed since last I heard, we knew exactly where he was on more than one occasion, and were told, "Hey! Come get this guy if you want him."
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
You're talking about the time the Sudanese government said that they had him, and they would give him to us. My understanding is that they said they would only send him to us by way of Saudi Arabia, and that SA refused to cooperate.

And then he went to Afghanistan.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
I notice the USA is demonstrating it's continuing commitment to the war on terror by refusing to hand over IRA suspects. Again.

Michael Moore is occasionally very irritating but his style certainly makes interesting watching and he often manages to make good points. His books are not half as funny as he seems to believe they are though.
 

---

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
 
Well scoreleaf that differs from person to person. I found some chapters of "Stupid white men" very entertaining, in the dry humor and allegory department, in the unspoken way, like Douglas Adams.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"I notice the USA is demonstrating it's continuing commitment to the war on terror by refusing to hand over IRA suspects. Again."

We only fight terror from brown people, though.
 

---

Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
 
Where were they (general) man when the Macarena reared its ugly head?!
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, Asian brown people, actually.

Although, there is this.
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 
They left out "culinary artist". Stupid White Men.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Watch the trailer of Farenheit 9/11.

The Daily Kos calls it "the most effective anti-Bush commercial ever made."
 

---

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
 
Slick. Very slick.
"I call upon every nation, to do anything they can, to stop these terrorist killers. Now watch this drive!"

What's that Jimi Hendrixy soul/rock-song being played in the end of the trailer? Anyone?
It sounds like he's singing "no fellow should, no fellow should".
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
"I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After.

And the lyrics that are audible in the trailer are "World pollution / There's no solution".
 

---

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
 
TSN, if we ever meet in life, I'm buying the nip-on-a-stick's for our two families, at the theme park.
There we may stroke our beards and reminisce at the bliss that was Flare, early 21st Century, while our grandchildren are running circles around us, getting icecream everywhere and throwing tofu at geese. *sigh*
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Those poor, poor geese...
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
I saw a interview this week (while I was laid up in hospital) with a congressman that's pissed his interview with Moore is edited to make him look bad: Moore askes him what he's doing about the lack of evidence for invading Iraq and every time he starts to answer, he's edited out.

In the actual conversation, the congressman actually offers to help Moore gather some info and is generally in agreement with him.

This is the kind of cheap tricks that undermined the premise of Bowling (a film I really liked prior ro learning how Moore edits things to his POV).

It's not a documentary if you alter tyhe facts and the interviews are edited to make only your case: then it's just one long anti-Bush commercial.
 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
But "Bowling" makes a good point, you have to admit. Some parts w/Chuck Heston were edited and I've heard that the scene in the bank was set up...but it asked a piviotal question: why do we love guns so much? Also, see "Roger and Me."

Most liberals acknowledge that while Moore is annoying and at times an a**hole, he is a brilliant filmmaker. Just look at his devoted fans. And look at who he pisses off. He's stirring up as much controversy as Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." While Moore edits and distorts (just like the person he is campaigning against), he tells the truth as well, and makes people seriously think.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
You'll write "pisses off", but not "asshole"?

And you've highlighted the problem right there. He edits and distorts, but tells the truth as well. So how are we suppossed to know when he's telling the truth, and when he's making stuff up? How can we believe anything he says?

(Apparently the gun murder stats given near the end of the film are almost all complete bollocks.)
 

---

Posted by JC Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
I like Michael Moore more than I like any of you, perhaps all of you combined.
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 

quote:

---

'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC

A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

Chicago Sun-Times

---

quote:

---

Alexander Hamilton has been on the 10 [dollar bill] since 1928, he's been well-honored by the country, was a great, uh, secretary of the Treasury, but, of all the people on the currency, the only one who isn't a president.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Veers:
But "Bowling" makes a good point, you have to admit. Some parts w/Chuck Heston were edited and I've heard that the scene in the bank was set up...but it asked a piviotal question: why do we love guns so much? Also, see "Roger and Me."

---

quote:

---

He calls Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft the "real axis of evil." He blamed 9-11 attacks on too many White people and not enough Black men on the planes.

And in his Oscar Night diatribe, film-maker Michael Moore used his win of an Academy Award to rant against a "fictitious" President Bush, "fictitious election results," and the War on Iraq, which he claimed was for "fictitious reasons."

"We live in fictitious times," he said when picking up the award for best documentary for his anti-gun film "Bowling for Columbine."

And Michael Moore should know. Because everything from his "working-class Joe" persona to his so-called documentary, for which he won the award, is largely fictitious.

Michael Moore is the master of the truly fictitious.

His public persona is that of an anti-corporate crusader from working-class Flint, Michigan, who wears a constant uniform of slouchy jeans, a plaid shirt and a Detroit Tigers baseball cap. But the real Michael Moore rides in limos and lives in a swanky $1.2 million Manhattan apartment. Moore�s "blue collar bonhomie" is bunk.

According to Detroit Free Press film critic Terry Lawson, Moore�s first documentary, "Roger and Me" featured manipulated facts and the breaking of established documentary rules.

Then there�s his "documentary," "Bowling for Columbine."

Documentary might not be the best word for this manipulative piece of cinematic celluloid. "Fictitious," Moore�s current term of choice, would be more accurate.

That includes the title. Moore says he chose "Bowling for Columbine" because Columbine High mass murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold attended a bowling class the morning of the massacre. Reality check: Jefferson County Sheriffs, who investigated the killings, say they skipped the class that day, and have the attendance sheets and blank bowling scoring sheets to prove it. Had Moore bothered to check the official report of the police investigation, he�d have known that. But why bother with the facts when you�re the fictitious Michael Moore?

Moore�s vehement anti-war ideology gets the best of his fact-checking capabilities. His film implies Harris and Klebold had violent tendencies because of "weapons of mass destruction" produced by a Lockheed Martin assembly plant in their hometown of Littleton. "Bowling" actually features footage of giant rocket assembly to make the point. But, according to Daniel Lyons in Forbes Magazine, Lockheed Martin�s Littleton plant makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites, not weapons.

And Moore�s anti-gun fervor also trumps the facts. He stages an event at North Country Bank and Trust in Michigan�s Traverse City, claiming that opening an account would entitle one to walk out of the bank with a gun in hand. The film shows him doing just that. But the key word is "staged." In reality, the bank does not provide guns for opening accounts, and you can�t walk in or out of the bank with one�unless you�re a security guard employed by the bank. The gun is one of several "giveaways" that can be chosen by customers in exchange for opening a CD account. In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000 and then must pass a background check for the gun, which can only be picked up at a licensed gun dealer.

Arguably, the worst fiction in Moore�s documentary is visited upon Hollywood Producer Dick Clark. Moore confronts Clark, trying to ask him question and accusing him of responsibility for the 2000 fatal shooting of 6-year-old Kayla Rowland of Mount Morris Township, Michigan, by her classmate, at Buell Elementary School.

Moore blames the shooting on Michigan�s work-to-welfare program, which he claims prevented the shooter�s mother, Tamarla Owens, from spending time with him. And he blames Clark, because Owens work-to-welfare job was at his "American Bandstand" restaurant at an area mall.

But Clark and the work-to-welfare program had nothing to do with it. Owens, who had three children with three different fathers and was once charged as a drug dealer, married a convicted drug dealer. Before the shooting. abandoned her son, turning him over to her brother, who lived in a flop house rife with stolen guns and ammunition, where drug deals went on at all hours. Michigan�s Family Independence Agency reported that she was a poor mother, and she later lost custody of all three children, two of them permanently.

Blaming the shooting of a classmate by Owen�s son on Dick Clark is nothing short of outrageous.

But that�s Michael Moore. A fictitious man living in a fictitious time. With a fictitious, Academy Award winning "documentary." As Brian Rohrbough, whose son Daniel died at Columbine, said, "This is just a guy trying to capitalize on the tragedy of others."

Moore�s latest best-selling book is "Stupid White Men. . . and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation," As they say, it takes one to know one. But the stupidest and sorriest are not Moore and those he writes about, but those who fall for his propaganda.

---

quote:

---

I mean, granted the article comes across rather extreme, but it does echo some of the same tendencies of the previous articles posted.

---

quote:

---

It also looks like it gets its "facts" entirely entirely from Forbes' carefuly crafted character assasination of Moore.

---

quote:

---

So turnabout is fair play then?

---

quote:

---

What's "obviously false"?
The biggest complaint I've seen on Moore is his re-editing of interviews ro make people look misleading or uncooperative (and he's definitely guilty of this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee:
There's one thing that troubles me, and I don't know why. It's about the whole thing where Bush stays in that classroom. I don't actually know how I feel about it. What was he supposed to do? Rush out of the classroom? Terrify all those kids? I don't know why he did it, I haven't seen the film of the incident. How much can he actually have been told in a brief whispered conversation? Or did the people who pull his strings give him a message that contained the edited highlights and an instruction to finish the appearance. Of course, maybe he's so stupid he failed to grasp the implications, and wanted to know how that story he was reading to the kids ended!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Gosh. mabye he was in shock or something: I sure as fuck was and i'm just a guy in florida.

Everyone I know was in shock- to be so critical of the president during one of the most insane and confusing moments in american history (regardless of how you view Bush) is just bullshit.

It's not as though Moore would have done any better, that's for certain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Gosh. mabye he was in shock or something: I sure as fuck was and i'm just a guy in florida.

Everyone I know was in shock- to be so critical of the president during one of the most insane and confusing moments in american history (regardless of how you view Bush) is just bullshit.

It's not as though Moore would have done any better, that's for certain.

---

Whoa, back up there Hoss.

You darn right I expect something more from a president, and unless guess you've defined expectations down so far as to expect nothing, Mr. Bush sitting in the classroom AFTER being told about the attacks is a failure in leadership.

I expect a president to react to a coordinated terror attack with something other than shock BECAUSE he's the president and not some guy from Florida.

I expect a president to:

[*]Asses the situation

[*]React to the situation

[*]Direct the armed forces in the defense of the nation

I expect that because only the president can order civilian planes to be shot down and make other critical decisions.

And I certainly expect those things from someone who keeps telling us what a Leader� he is and that he is a War President�.

---

quote:

---

Lauer: �You accepted the Palm D�Or Award at the Cannes Film Festival. It�s a huge honor, especially for a film like this. And you said, I think the quote was, �I did not set out to make a political film. The art of this, the cinema, comes before the politics.��

Moore: �That�s right. That�s absolutely right.�

Lauer: �I�m amazed you said it with a straight face.�

Moore: �Why is that, why?�

Lauer: �Because I think there is politics in every single frame of this movie.�

Moore: �Oh, of course there is. Don�t misunderstand me. There�s politics right now in this discussion. There�s politics in all aspects of our daily lives.�

Lauer: �But you didn�t set out to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Bush administration and the Bush family?�

Moore: �That�s part of what I�m doing. But most importantly, listen, if I just wanted to�if it was just about the politics, if that was my primary motivation, politics, I would, you know, suspend what I�m doing right now and get out on a campaign trail.�

Lauer: �Some people say that�s what you�ve done.�

Moore: �Or maybe I should be running for office this year. I mean if politics was my main motivation I would be doing politics. But I�m a filmmaker. First and foremost the art has to come before the politics otherwise, you don�t get�the politics don�t work."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Nothing says that was'nt going on- he could have been waiting for the helicopter to return and pick him up for all we know-or more pointedly- for all Moore's film will allow us to find out.

I point out that anything Moore insinuates as a failing on Bush's part during the attacks will be so far biased that it cant be even considered the truth without outside verificaton.

Not that 99% of the film's viewers will bother.
Thus, I'm pissed at Moore's so called "documentary" style film.

---

• 8:46:40 - American Airlines Flight 11 hits the North Tower. Page 6.
  
  
• 8:55 - [B]efore entering the classroom, the President spoke to National Security Advisor
  Condoleezza Rice, who was at the White House. She recalled first telling the President it was a twin engine aircraft, then that it was commercial, saying "that's all we know right
  now, Mr. President."
  
  At the White House, the Vice President had just sat down for a meeting when his assistant told him to turn on his television because a plane had struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center. The Vice President was wondering "how the hell a plane could hit the World Trade Center" when he saw the second aircraft strike the South Tower. Page 20.
  
  
• 9:03:02 - United Airlines Flight 175 hits the South Tower. Page 8.
  
  
• Approximately 9:05 - Andrew Card whispered to [Mr. Bush]: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The national press corps was standing behind the children in the classroom; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was
  happening.
  
  The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. Page 22.
  
  
• Between 9:15 and 9:30 - [T]he staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington. Page 22-23.
  
  
• 9:37:46 - American Airlines Flight 77 hits the Pentegon. Page 14.
  
  
  [ June 19, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence
  Interpreting the President's Image in Crisis
  
  Presidential historian Robert Dallek of Boston University thinks Bush focused too much on appearances, rather than leaping into action.
  
  "It speaks volumes about the preoccupation these politicians have about manipulating image," Dallek said yesterday. Bush should have immediately excused himself and started figuring out what was happening and what he could do. "The way to project calm and strength is to take care of business."
  
  Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at the University of New Orleans, concurs: "I don't understand how one sits there. I just don't. Minutes are an eternity in that sort of situation. . . . A quick presidential decision may save lives."
  
  Brinkley credits Bush with dusting himself off after a rough first day and regaining his composure. And he acknowledges that few presidents have had to endure such a Candid Camera moment. But Brinkley adds, "Character is not defined in good times, when you've been properly briefed, it's defined when you're in a desperate crisis situation."
  
  Presidential scholar Fred Greenstein, a professor emeritus at Princeton, defends Bush's response in the initial minutes.
  
  "It's made a little more complex by being in the presence of little kids," Greenstein said. "It certainly wouldn't present the right message if he turned white, rushed out, and kids started crying."
  
  ----
  
  Eventually, at the suggestion of an aide, Bush got up and went to a holding room. He spoke briefly to the vice president, his national security adviser, the governor of New York and the head of the FBI, according to the commission report. Then, the report states, Bush spent roughly 15 minutes working on what he'd say to the cameras at the elementary school. He was acting as Communicator in Chief, in a sense. With his senior aides, he worked on his lines.
  
  "As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made at this time, other than the decision to return to Washington," the report states. The president was persuaded to fly to Louisiana and then Nebraska before finally returning to the capital.
  
  Joel Achenbach, The Washington Post

  ---

  *Emphasis added.
   

  ---

  Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
   
  This page, linked to from that page of video stills, has some interesting facts about the chronology (in case anyone missed it):
  
  http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  So why, at 9:03 a.m. - fifteen minutes after it was clear the United States was under terrorist attack - did President Bush sit down with a classroom of second-graders and begin a 20-minute pre-planned photo op? No one knows the answer to that question. In fact, no one has even asked Bush about it.

  ---

  Uhhh.....no.
  It was not clear that America was under a terrorist attack. In fact, I recall speculation after the first plane hit that it was a air-traffic control error or that the plane was out of control.
  
  It's unlikely that Bush had less information than anyone else but it was still a shock and he was still relativly cut off from info while at the schoolhouse.
  
  While I dont defend Bush's administration but I would like to hear more than one slant on his reasons for remaining at the school.
  
  

  quote:

  ---

  Brinkley credits Bush with dusting himself off after a rough first day and regaining his composure. And he acknowledges that few presidents have had to endure such a Candid Camera moment. But Brinkley adds, "Character is not defined in good times, when you've been properly briefed, it's defined when you're in a desperate crisis situation."

  ---

  ...annnnd that's the one thing I really did like about the way things were handled: Bush was on TV and was pretty damn inspirational in one of the country's darkest moments.
  (not that he wrote that speach or anything, but still...)
   

  ---

  Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by TSN:
  
  Admittedly, I didn't find a reference to any drugs (assuming there actually were any). But, that doesn't seem really important, since drugs weren't actually involved in the child's shooting, and it was made pretty clear that his mother didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, anyway.

  ---

  Actually drugs were involved in the childs shooting:
  
  
  

  quote:

  ---

  
  No charges are expected against the boy, and the prosecutor -- as well as many in the community -- has urged compassion for a child they say was a victim of chaotic upbringing.
  
  The boy's father is in jail and his mother was evicted from her home a few weeks ago; the boy was staying with an uncle and another man when he found the loaded .32-caliber semiautomatic gun.
  
  The other man, Jamelle James, 19, is accused of allowing the boy access to the gun -- even twirling it in front of him -- and was charged Thursday with involuntary manslaughter.
  
  A search of the ramshackle one-story house turned up a bag of drugs, a loaded shotgun and ammunition. The boy's father, Dedric Owens, said people at the house traded crack cocaine for guns.
  

  ---

  That was an excerpt from one of the original reports on said story on WOOD TV-8 - March 08, 2000 out of Grand Rapids (MI).
  
  Here is another report from the day prior...the day after it happened. And really, whether the mother was being evicted or not, that really is besides the point, the kid was a problem child.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  Jason, a question: Do you think that a plane hitting one of the World Trade Center towers requires presidential attention?
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  ...but I would like to hear more than one slant on his reasons for remaining at the school.

  ---

  I've got one, he wanted to hear about the goat.
   

  ---

  Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
   
  It seems bizarre, I'm no fan of Dubya, but even I'd agree that the President should hardly have to dump his schedule because of one airline disaster. The chronology goes some way to establishing at what time the FAA, NORAD, whoever knew that at least one hijacking had taken place - the question remains as to exactly how much was then communicated to the White House.
   

  ---

  Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
   
  But the point is that he stayed in the classroom after being told about the second crash. Supposedly, the exact words whispered in his ear were "America is under attack". And yet, apparently, that didn't warrant getting up and saying "I'm sorry, children, but something very important has come up, and I'm afraid I need to go do something presidential now".
  
  

  "So....he did NOt intend to make a 'political movie' but DID intend to go after Bush?"

  
  Sounds to me like he said he did intend to make a political movie. He just feels the emphasis is on the "movie" part, more than the "political" part.
  
  

  "Actually drugs were involved in the childs shooting..."

  
  What I meant was that the shooting wasn't part of a drug deal, or because the child was taking drugs, or anything like that. I mean, if you want to look at it that way, probably most of the guns involved in crimes in this country are, in some way, connected to drugs somewhere. But that doesn't make the shootings drug-related.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  Call me an irrational alarmist, but I think the president can dump a grade-school reading period, or other photo ops for that matter, if even a single plane crashes into a World Trade Center tower.
  
  It's kind of an important event.
  
  Or at least delay the time with the kids until he knows for certain that it was just a bad pilot and not an act of terrorism.
   

  ---

  Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
   
  Aargh! Why are you making me sound like I'm defending the moronic little cunt? They thought the Columbia disaster was an act of terrorism!
  
  For me there's the bigger picture. What did they know, when? What was communicated to the Presidential entourage? What did the Chief-of-Staff actually say to Bush? I just feel the need to know all that before asking the final question - what then went through Bush's mind during those seven minutes? Because if there was a real threat - or even an understanding of the actual threat - it would have been taken out of his hands. USSS would have gone in there and bodily removed him from the room and gotten him to safety, mowing down the entire class in the process if they considered it necessary.
  
  (Tim - my comment at the top of this page was in response to the question that was asked about why Bush attended the event at all after the first crash. No-one's doubting he should have done something after the second crash - it's what he should have done and when that's the question)
   

  ---

  Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
   
  http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=20
  A little info on the Moore/Mark Kennedy fiasco. Among them, the transcript of a portion left out:
  
  

  quote:

  ---

  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?
  
  MM: I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?
  
  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?
  
  MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.
  
  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.
  
  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
  
  MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.
  
  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.
  
  MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.
  
  CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.
  
  

  ---

  Kennedy has two nephews on the way to Afghanistan, according to "This Week with George S." But none on the way to Iraq.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  In this instance, I understand where you're coming from Lee.
  
  I just think that even a single plane flying into WTC is a pretty big event. Big enough for the president to stop and find out what's going on.
  
  But you go ahead and defend Mr. Bush all you want.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
  Jason, a question: Do you think that a plane hitting one of the World Trade Center towers requires presidential attention?

  ---

  Well it did not when that screwball tried to kill himself that way several years prior (and that's probably the first thing everyone thought of).
  
  It's easy to say (now) that ANYTHING as crazy as that would need direct presidential attention but planes do (occasionally) lose control and crash without terrorist intervention from time to time and I cant imagine that anyone leapt up and knew terrorists had coordinated a massive attack on several fronts at that point.
  
  It's sad, but- today- if a plane crashed near New York, the immeadeate thing would be to go on high alert and assume we're under attack.
  
  As there was not prior precedent, I dont think anyone would have assumed the worst at the first plane's impact (again, many were talking about a possible plane malfunction when the second plane hit).
  
  Really, I dont hold Bush unaccountable for finishing in the the classroom (not that we'll ever know exactly what he was told), but we'll also never know what Gore would have done (or anyone else for that matter).
  
  How do you guys think things would've happened with Gore in Bush's place?
  Even if he jumped onto the first flight back to D.C., what more could've been done by the president at that time (and with what little plans were in place for a terrorist threat?
   

  ---

  Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
  As there was not prior precedent...

  ---

  What about that plane crashing into the Empire State Building?
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Topher:
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
  As there was not prior precedent...

  ---

  What about that plane crashing into the Empire State Building?

  ---

  Not a terrorist threat though- what did the President do back when that happened?
  What should he have done, really?
  
  Aside from installing Phalanx on the rooftops of New York, there's very little by way of preventative reaction.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  Who here is talking prevention?
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
  Not a terrorist threat though- what did the President do back when that happened?
  What should he have done, really?

  ---

  This isn't WWII and a plane hitting the Empire State Building. Clearly the days we live in are much different.
  
  There is no denying that we live in an age of terrorism.
  
  As a result, I don't think it's unreasonable to say Mr. Bush should have been more responsible to his position as president in assessing the situation of a plane hitting the WTC, again considering the terror-ridden times in which we live, before moving on to a meaningless photo op.
  
  It's hard to say what the impact would have been, if any, his doing so would have had on the events of the day. But National Command Authority resides in his office and a determined president might have been able to cut through some of the confusion.
  
  I don't say its the worst thing he's ever done in not doing so, but I think he should have been more on top of the situation.
  
  I generally side with Lee on this issue; the real problem here is about what Mr. Bush did after being told by Mr. Card about the second plane.
  
  I think his inaction immediately after Mr. Card passed on the information of the second plane hit the WTC represents a rather large failure on Mr. Bush's part.
  
  After the second plane hit the WTC, the events of the day mushroom into something far beyond a simple out-of-the-ordinary accident. It becomes clear that the United States is being attacked, and that those attacks are coordinated. And the president, as Commander-In-Chief is going to have to make some hard decisions quickly to act in defence of the nation.
   

  ---

  Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
   
  Funny thing, the US has faced many crises in its past, yet this is the first time I've heard it asked what the losing* Presidential candidate would have done if he had been in the actual President's place!
  
  It's meaningless to ask what Gore would have done. There's a very real possibility that under his leadership the numerous intelligence failures wouldn't have gone uncorrected and the attacks might not have happened. Even if they had, we might not now be embroiled in Iraq (for once I can say 'we' because thanks to Blair we're in this together). Gore certainly wouldn't have pulled that stunt on the aircraft carrier then sat around while the death toll of his own country's citizens creeps up towards a thousand. Then again, maybe we'd be in the same boat - there is a tide, and all that.
  
  *Yes, I know. . .
   

  ---

  Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
   
  Lee: "(for once I can say 'we' because thanks to Blair we're in this together)"
  
  I thought you had to apply for brown-fuzzy-bird citizenship in order to live and work there.
  
  Right now I'm closer to the UK than you are. Teehee. Oh, mercy.
   

  ---

  Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
   
  Well, under Al Gore, we'd probably still have had 9/11, and Afghanistan, too, if he didn't bore the Taliban into giving up bin Laden with his ultimatum speech.
  But we wouldn't be in Iraq.
   

  ---

  Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
   
  Harrison Ford would have punched his advisor out, carried all the children of the school out on his back, and flown the helicopter back to the White House.
  
  Then he would have punched out the cameraman, and punched out some bystanders, and punched out Osama Bin Laden, because Tom Clancy's CIA is on top of things.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Veers:
  Well, under Al Gore, we'd probably still have had 9/11, and Afghanistan, too, if he didn't bore the Taliban into giving up bin Laden with his ultimatum speech.
  But we wouldn't be in Iraq.

  ---

  I agree- 9/11 would have still happened: it was planned far in advance and set to have happened several months prior as it turns out.
  
  I dont think we'd have invaded Iraq.
  
  I do think that we'd be in a more vulnerable position for further attacks today if Gore was President though- part of what emboldened Al Quieda was the total lack of a response for the bombing of the USS Cole (something Bush's office also failed to address).
  
  I think we'd still have something like the Patriot Act to trample our rights (although the dems would've wisely called something less inane).
  
  I dont think we'd have any military morale under Gore: morale was at it's lowest under Clinton and Gore is not "Mr. Charisma". It's tough for a CO to order something unpopular when no one respects them and no one I know of in the military respected Clinton or Gore.
  
  Would we have invaded Afghanistan? Probably not.
  There would've been no coallition for it (despite intel. placing Al Queida there), I think we'd have limited retaliation to airstrikes and sanctions.
  
  Just my .02
  
  
  The real question is: "What will Kerry do if elected?"
  What do you guys think he'll do (terrorism-wise) that Busco is not doing now?
   

  ---

  Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
   
  

  "...no one I know of in the military respected Clinton or Gore."

  
  But they made the mistake of respecting Bush, and look at where it's gotten them.
  
  

  "What do you guys think he'll do (terrorism-wise) that Busco is not doing now?"

  
  Well, since just about anything would be an improvement...
   

  ---

  Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
   
  I thought it was only leaders who didn't get where they are by being elected who have to worry about retaining the support of the military. Oh, wait. . . 8)
   

  ---

  Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
   
  Ooooooh, burn.
  
  It is strange his face while sitting there as the teacher drums the words out of the students. I wish the video was less choppy so I could see him more clearly. He seems confused or bewildered or something. Which is a perfectly natural reaction. Makes him seem almost human.
  
  After hearing of the second crash, I distinctly remember thinking about Die Hard 2 when the bad guys futz with the Ground Control computers to crash a plane. I figured some kind of malfunction or something like that. Something rational.
  
  OTOH, no one at any point had handed me a briefing suggesting that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack on US soil which might involve flying airplanes into buildings, so maybe I could be excused. Still it's quite a thing to be told and I'm not certain how much difference that five minutes would have changed anything.
   

  ---

  Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
   
  Actually, it was Clinton's military that helped us win in Afghanistan...so we should at least be giving him some credit. It was also the training in Kosovo that helped some of the soldiers there.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Veers:
  Actually, it was Clinton's military that helped us win in Afghanistan...so we should at least be giving him some credit. It was also the training in Kosovo that helped some of the soldiers there.

  ---

  Kosovo was only about two years late to help anyone though.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by TSN:
  

  
  
  

  "What do you guys think he'll do (terrorism-wise) that Busco is not doing now?"

  
  Well, since just about anything would be an improvement...

  ---

  That's just the point- there's a LOT that could be even worse- I want to hear Kerry's plan (something not already outlined by the Bush admin).
  
  It's easy to say "anything would be an improvement..." but without a solid course of action, things will actually get worse.
  
  That's not to say we should'nt vote for Kerry rather than Bush, but we (as voters) need to make clear that a new course of action is required.
  Mabye it's just the obviously one-sided commercial coverage in this campaign but all I see Kerry talking about is healthcare.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  ...but all I see Kerry talking about is healthcare.

  ---

  And this is unimportant?
   

  ---

  Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
   
  

  "...I want to hear Kerry's plan...

  
  So, did you even try to find the information? I admit that I haven't read it myself, but it only took me about thirty seconds to find.
   

  ---

  Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
   
  "Plan to making America Stronger and Safer". Sounds nice. I support Kerry, although I somewhat suspected that plan-heading to be flanked by the pop-up sign "Free Birdseed!"
  
  Mind you, I've just seen all web-episodes of "Edward the Less", so I'll be inappropriately silly for a short while forward.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by TSN:
  

  "...I want to hear Kerry's plan...

  
  So, did you even try to find the information? I admit that I haven't read it myself, but it only took me about thirty seconds to find.

  ---

  It's all the same jargon as Bush but with the (good) addition of "Reforming Domestic Intelligence
  Many of the examinations of 9/11 have raised serious questions about whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis. Kerry believes that the Bush Administration�s proposed Terrorist Threat Integration Center, (TTIC) will not be able to do the job, given its dependence on other agencies' analysts, the bureaucratic divide created between people identifying vulnerabilities and individuals charged with eliminating those vulnerabilities, and the number of people in charge which could complicate efforts to work with the state and local governments on information sharing. John Kerry believes that simplifying the bureaucratic charts makes more sense. America needs an independent intelligence capability that focuses explicitly on domestic intelligence."
  
  That's worth voting for at least.
  
  His "Orange Alert" idea suffers from the same problems as Bush's- that local police are supposed to "heighten their vigillance" during alerts yet there's no clear idea where the money for additional police or their overtime are supposed to come from.
  
  Thanks for the link though my point was that I've not seen anything of these plans on TV, in ads or (heavean forbid) in interviews iwth Kerry.
  
  Yeah, healthcare is imporntant but it's not going to be the top issue in this election.
  
  If it sounds like I'm being overly critical of Kerry, it's just that I DONT want Bush to win.
  And I think he will at this point.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by TSN:
  

  "...I want to hear Kerry's plan...

  
  So, did you even try to find the information? I admit that I haven't read it myself, but it only took me about thirty seconds to find.

  ---

  It's all the same jargon as Bush but with the (good) addition of "Reforming Domestic Intelligence":
  

  quote:

  ---

  Many of the examinations of 9/11 have raised serious questions about whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis. Kerry believes that the Bush Administration�s proposed Terrorist Threat Integration Center, (TTIC) will not be able to do the job, given its dependence on other agencies' analysts, the bureaucratic divide created between people identifying vulnerabilities and individuals charged with eliminating those vulnerabilities, and the number of people in charge which could complicate efforts to work with the state and local governments on information sharing. John Kerry believes that simplifying the bureaucratic charts makes more sense. America needs an independent intelligence capability that focuses explicitly on domestic intelligence."

  ---

  Reforming/re-structuring intel worth voting for at least. Kinda vague as to exactly how it'll be accomplished though....
  
  His "Orange Alert" idea suffers from the same problems as Bush's- that local police are supposed to "heighten their vigillance" during alerts yet there's no clear idea where the money for additional police or their overtime are supposed to come from.
  
  Thanks for the link though my point was that I've not seen anything of these plans on TV, in ads or (heavean forbid) in interviews iwth Kerry.
  
  Yeah, healthcare is imporntant but it's not going to be the top issue in this election.
  
  If it sounds like I'm being overly critical of Kerry, it's just that I DONT want Bush to win.
  And I think he will at this point.
   

  ---

  Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
   
  

  quote:

  ---

  Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
  If it sounds like I'm being overly critical of Kerry, it's just that I DONT want Bush to win.
  And I think he will at this point.

  ---

  Here's where I think you're wrong:
  

  
  
  1. Mr. Bush will have a four-year record to run on that he can't run away from. And of that record, everything is fair game.
     
     
     • environmental policy
       
     • energy policy
       
     • tax-cuts for the wealthy
       
     • jobs
       
     • the underfunding No Child Left Behind
       
     • preemptive invasion
       
     • secret detention of American citizens for unspecified periods
       
       
     That's all there for Mr. Kerry to hold up to scrutiny. And I don't think Mr. Bush's record holds up very well.
     
     I can't wait for the debates. I don't think Mr. Bush will get the free pass he got from Mr. Gore if he tries to play the 'ah, shucks' bumpkin.
     
     
  2. Mr. Bush and his administration is on the verge of imploding and Mr. Kerry hasn't really even started serious campaigning yet.
     
     Sure there is a long time to go yet, but the curtain is starting to fall and reveal just how incompetent this administration is. When the campaign season comes into full swing, Mr. Kerry may just need to get that curtain a bit of a nudge and let the light shine in.
     
      

     ---

     Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
      
     It's easy to say "anything would be an improvement..."
     
     Yes. And you're NEVER SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT! It's right up there with "what could possibly go wrong?"
      

     ---

     Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
      
     You know, you're really mellowing in your old age. . . 8)
      

     ---

     Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
      
     Jay: I think we all know just how abominable Bush's record is. The question is how many people are out there who just can't understand that. All Bush has to say is "I took down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein", and a certain number of people will be utterly convinced that he's the A+ #1 best president of all time. Also, there's a certain number of people (and I'm looking at my parents here...) who will vote for Bush for absolutely no other reason than that he's the Republican candidate. It doesn't matter one whit what he's done, is doing, or plans to do: there are only two real parties, and a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Satan and baby-raping*.
     
     What it really comes down to is just how numerous those two groups are. And how many people who normally don't vote can be convinced that it is imperative that they go out and vote against Bush, lest the country be destroyed.
     
     ---
     
     *Okay, a slight exaggeration. Maybe.
      

     ---

     Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
      
     Dammit, I accidentally hit the back button on the wrong window and thereby deleted my extensive and well-researched post. Now it's late and I'm tired and I was almost finished and I'm pissed.
     
     Well, quick recap:
     
     1. Michael Moore's argument strategies are unethical. He employs manipulative editing, straw men, and other anti-contextual irrationalities to foster his enmity. Just do some Google searches like I did for some of the things he says in the first few paragraphs of his self-defense that someone posted a link to. You'll find that he's full of misquotes and mischaracterizations, personally attacking those who disagree with him (and creating straw men of their positions) instead of going up against what they say.
     
     2. In short, Moore's attack on Bush for not rushing out of the schoolroom is based on a selective use of context. Bush only knew what he had been told, and everyone was confused in those first minutes. There was no way for him to have known what September 11 was to become. Further, there was no reason for him to suspect that he was a target. Hindsight is an exact science, but you can't convict a man for failing to have it in advance of events.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by TSN:
     Jay: I think we all know just how abominable Bush's record is. The question is how many people are out there who just can't understand that. All Bush has to say is "I took down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein", and a certain number of people will be utterly convinced that he's the A+ #1 best president of all time. Also, there's a certain number of people (and I'm looking at my parents here...) who will vote for Bush for absolutely no other reason than that he's the Republican candidate. It doesn't matter one whit what he's done, is doing, or plans to do: there are only two real parties, and a vote for a Democrat is a vote for Satan and baby-raping*.
     
     What it really comes down to is just how numerous those two groups are. And how many people who normally don't vote can be convinced that it is imperative that they go out and vote against Bush, lest the country be destroyed.
     
     ---
     
     *Okay, a slight exaggeration. Maybe.

     ---

     That's all true enough.
     
     All I'm saying is that George W. Bush seems like he's about to implode and John Kerry hasn't really even started to make his case.
     
     So electoral pessimism might not be the order of the day.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
     2. In short, Moore's attack on Bush for not rushing out of the schoolroom is based on a selective use of context. Bush only knew what he had been told, and everyone was confused in those first minutes. There was no way for him to have known what September 11 was to become. Further, there was no reason for him to suspect that he was a target. Hindsight is an exact science, but you can't convict a man for failing to have it in advance of events.

     ---

     Well, I have to disagree with that.
     
     It�s the duty of a president to move immediately to find out what�s going on and to act accordingly. Those who say his inaction stems from confusion, his own and others, may be right, but it in no way lift the responsibility of the presidential mantle from him.
     
     It seems no positive affirmation of the President to say he didn�t move because he was confused. Being confused is one thing. Being confused and doing nothing about it is another.
     
     Have we come to expect so little of Mr. Bush? Verbal gaffs may be expected and dispelled because of low expectations, but inaction in the face of being told of the second plane crash seems a bit much to dismiss by simply saying he was confused.
     
     Which is worse, the president not acting because he was too busy projecting stalwart calm for the children and the nation or not acting because he was confused?
     
     Neither of which seem the appropriate response to the events he�d been told about.
     
     One plane hitting the WTC is a major event.
     
     A second plane hitting the WTC makes an already major event much more serious because it greatly increases the chances that it is a terrorist attack.
     
     A second plane implies coordination. A second plane means there implies conspiracy. A second plane means it wasn't an accident involving some wayward pilot. A second plane hitting the WTC is an event clearly requiring immediate presidential attention.
     
     When we are attacked by terrorists, the president must act quickly to assess the situation and make the decisions necessary to defend the nation, because the president, as Commander-In-Chief, is the only one in the national command authority who can issue shoot down orders of civilian aircraft.
     
     And the 9-11 Commission indicates that by 8:37 the FAA was suggesting that might be necessary because when they contacted the military�s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) the FAA suggested they �scramble some F-16s,� which NEADS promptly did. These aircraft could have done nothing against civilian aircraft without presidential authority. And if the 9-11 Commission is correct, any possible shoot down of the hijacked aircraft could not have happened till almost an hour later. Mr. Bush is responsible for approximately 35 minutes of that time.
     
     The Commission indicates that no one in the administration was made aware of the situation at all until after 8:46.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     When American 11 struck the World Trade Center at 8:46, no one in the White House or traveling with the President knew that it had been hijacked. Immediately afterward, duty officers at the White House and Pentagon began notifying senior officials what had happened.

     ---

     Mr. Bush was informed about the first aircraft at 8:55. He ignored the information. As Lee points out, this is somewhat understandable, because it was just one plane. I don�t agree with that assessment, but I see the point.
     
     But from 9:05, when he was told of the second plane crash by Mr. Card, until 9:30, Mr. Bush apparently did nothing other than listen to the children read and work on remarks.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     The President was seated in a classroom of second graders when, at approximately 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him: �A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack.� The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis. The national press corps was standing behind the children in the classroom; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.
     
     The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15....
     
     ----
     
     Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington.

     ---

     So, it's not 7 minutes. It's more like 25.
     
     Who knows what would have happened if Mr. Bush had left the classroom immediately to find out what had happened. We�ll never know, because he just sat there projecting what he says was an air of calm. Or was it confusion.
     
     [ June 22, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
      

     ---

     Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
      
     

     "Just do some Google searches like I did for some of the things he says in the first few paragraphs of his self-defense that someone posted a link to."

     
     Well, if you already did the searches, would you care to provide some links? Especially to things you say he misquoted? It seems like it would be pretty stupid of him to change a quote someone said, if someone could just do a Google search and find the real quote.
      

     ---

     Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
      
     Wow, Jay. You've modified a comment regarding how no one could've known what was going on into Bush failing to be psychic and being frozen by psychological disarray. I applaud your rhetoric, but it is meaningless . . . I find the effort by Moore to attack Bush for failing to live up to some comic book hero standard to be ridiculous.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
     One plane hitting the WTC is a major event.

     ---

     One "small, twin-engine plane" hitting the WTC is a tragic accident, probably in overcast skies. Or at least, that's what everyone supposed at the time.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     A second plane hitting the WTC makes an already major event much more serious because it greatly increases the chances that it is a terrorist attack.

     ---

     Yes, it does increase the chances of terrorism if the report is accurate. And so, with New York seemingly under attack, Bush quickly concluded his event in Florida, went to be briefed more thoroughly, and prepped for his return to Washington.
     
     Moore demands a leap in logic at this point, arguing that Bush should've known he was a target, and was thus endangering the children either knowingly or foolishly unknowingly . . . but that doesn't logically follow as a conclusion based on the events to that point.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     These aircraft could have done nothing against civilian aircraft without presidential authority.

     ---

     Evidently you didn't read the part about NORAD having the authority in an attack situation. Sure, it is mentioned as unlikely to be employed, but as long as you're expecting omniscience and perfection from your government and officials therein why bother with minutiae?
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     And if the 9-11 Commission is correct, any possible shoot down of the hijacked aircraft could not have happened till almost an hour later. Mr. Bush is responsible for approximately 35 minutes of that time.

     ---

     CAP wasn't known by the upper echelons to be in the air over Washington until just before 10am, and the White House's request for it didn't reach the proper authorities until 09:59, by which point it had already become airborne. Bush could've ordered CAP to shoot down aircraft at whatever time that White House request was, but it wouldn't have been relevant.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Mr. Bush was informed about the first aircraft at 8:55. He ignored the information. As Lee points out, this is somewhat understandable, because it was just one plane. I don�t agree with that assessment, but I see the point.

     ---

     Why don't you agree? Sure, in the hindsight of a post-9/11 world I can see where one might disagree, but you can't blame Bush pre-9/11 for living in the context of pre-9/11.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     But from 9:05, when he was told of the second plane crash by Mr. Card, until 9:30, Mr. Bush apparently did nothing other than listen to the children read and work on remarks.

     ---

     Thank you Mr. Moore. In fact, the report has Bush wrapping up his appearance within 5-7 minutes, then departing to be briefed by staff (and television coverage, which is where even government officials were getting a lot of news that day). It wasn't until the Pentagon was hit that Bush, like many of us, came to realize that the entire nation was under attack. The Pentagon, after all, was the first non-WTC, non-New York, non-civilian target.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Who knows what would have happened if Mr. Bush had left the classroom immediately to find out what had happened.

     ---

     Not a single thing different than what did happen. He's the president . . . not some comic book deity. 5-7 minutes wouldn't have made a bit of difference that day. If you bothered to read the Commission report you linked to, you'd see that.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Omega:
     It's easy to say "anything would be an improvement..."
     
     Yes. And you're NEVER SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT! It's right up there with "what could possibly go wrong?"

     ---

     It's disturbing how close the rules of politics mirror those of horror movies.
     
     Soon we'll see Kerry say "wait here while I go check it out" ot "No one could've survived that"... While we al shout at the TV "Nooo you idiot!!!"
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Wow, Jay. You've modified a comment regarding how no one could've known what was going on into Bush failing to be psychic and being frozen by psychological disarray.

     ---

     Firstly, I assert that he should have acted to find out what was going on. Sitting in the class does no one any good.
     
     Second, your psychic jab widely misses the mark because as I posted, Andrew Card tells Mr. Bush: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." At that point Mr. Bush knows. He knows and does nothing.
     
     Thirdly, as to me saying Mr. Bush was "frozen by psychological disarray," well, no. You're the one saying he was all confused and couldn't act. Not me.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Moore demands a leap in logic at this point, arguing that Bush should've known he was a target, and was thus endangering the children either knowingly or foolishly unknowingly . . . but that doesn't logically follow as a conclusion based on the events to that point.

     ---

     What exactly are you basing this on? Have you seen the film prior to it's coming out?
     
     It's certainly not my line of argument and if you intend to refute what I write, do so. If you want to argue about Mr. Moore, do so. Do not conflate the two.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Evidently you didn't read the part about NORAD having the authority in an attack situation. Sure, it is mentioned as unlikely to be employed, but as long as you're expecting omniscience and perfection from your government and officials therein why bother with minutiae?

     ---

     You want to cite that the part of the 9-11 Commission report that says NORAD has independent, non-presidential authority to shoot down civilian aircraft?
     
     This:
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     At the same time, the NEADS Mission Crew Commander was dealing with the arrival of the Langley fighters over Washington, DC. He was sorting out what their orders were with respect to potential targets. Shortly after 10:10, and having no knowledge either that United 93 had been heading toward Washington, DC or that it had crashed, the Mission Crew Commander explicitly instructed that the Langley fighters did not have "clearance to shoot" aircraft over the nation�s capital.
     
     Page 17.

     ---

     And this:
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     10:15. By that time the Langley fighters were over Washington. But, as late as 10:10, the operating orders were still "negative clearance to shoot" regarding non-responsive targets over Washington, DC. The word of the authorization to shoot down hijacked civilian aircraft did not reach NEADS until 10:31.
     
     Page 19.

     ---

     *Emphasis added.
     
     And pages 23 - 28 would seem to contridict you assertion.
     
     I just don't think that anyone could give NORAD independent dicision making on the matter of shooting down civilian passenger aircraft. There is no way they would have done so without express presidential authority.
     
     Read how the military went to the Vice President Cheney to get a shoot down order, which he gave, he says, on authorization from the President Bush.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     CAP wasn't known by the upper echelons to be in the air over Washington until just before 10am, and the White House's request for it didn't reach the proper authorities until 09:59, by which point it had already become airborne. Bush could've ordered CAP to shoot down aircraft at whatever time that White House request was, but it wouldn't have been relevant.

     ---

     The Combat Air Partol you refer to is over Washington D.C. and you are correct that no one apparently knew about it until 9:58.
     
     However, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) had F-15 fighters were ordered scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. These military aircraft were airborn at 8:53 and over New York at 9:08. Page 6.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     quote:
     Mr. Bush was informed about the first aircraft at 8:55. He ignored the information. As Lee points out, this is somewhat understandable, because it was just one plane. I don�t agree with that assessment, but I see the point.
     
     

     Why don't you agree? Sure, in the hindsight of a post-9/11 world I can see where one might disagree, but you can't blame Bush pre-9/11 for living in the context of pre-9/11.

     ---

     I'm sure you've read my previous posts because I've laid it out before. I just think that it was important enough to leave a photo op to find out about. Because:
     
     
     • We live in an age of terror
       
     • The WTC is an important site
       
       
     To those I'll add this...
     
     
     • The WTC has a history of being a target of terrorists. In 1993 the WTC was attacked by terrorists who used a bomb in the parking garage if I'm not mistaken. So you'd figure the President would want to figure out what had happened.
       
       

     quote:

     ---

     Thank you Mr. Moore. In fact, the report has Bush wrapping up his appearance within 5-7 minutes, then departing to be briefed by staff (and television coverage, which is where even government officials were getting a lot of news that day).

     ---

     Again, we'll go to the 9-11 Commission report:
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Between 9:15 and 9:30, the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. As far as we know, no one was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President's statement to the nation. No decisions were made during this time, other than the decision to return to Washington.
     
     Page 22 - 23.

     ---

     Mr. Bush clearly wasn't in contact with anyone while listening to the children read. From to 8:55 to 9:30, the report indicates that Mr. Bush was not in contact with the Pentagon and had made no decisions other than to return to Washington.
     
     And at 9:05, when Mr. Card told him of the second plane hitting the WTC, Mr. Bush knew it was a coordinated attack.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     It wasn't until the Pentagon was hit that Bush, like many of us, came to realize that the entire nation was under attack. The Pentagon, after all, was the first non-WTC, non-New York, non-civilian target.

     ---

     Why do we have to wait for a military target to be attacked? Isn't hitting the two WTC towers enough to still action?
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     If you bothered to read the Commission report you linked to, you'd see that.

     ---

     That's rather problematic.
     
     [ June 22, 2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     Both of you bring up valid points but what good would have shooting down the second jet have done?
     
     That's several hundred tons of burning debris raining down over a larger (possibly citywide) area instead of a single target (assuming they did not manage to destroy the plane a few miles out)
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
     Both of you bring up valid points but what good would have shooting down the second jet have done?
     
     That's several hundred tons of burning debris raining down over a larger (possibly citywide) area instead of a single target (assuming they did not manage to destroy the plane a few miles out)

     ---

     I don't, in reality, think that much could have been done about the second jet in NYC. The Pentagon, maybe. But that's just a maybe.
     
     However, not knowing the potential targets of non-responding hijacked civilian aircraft is no reason for inaction. The president would have to have made the decision about whether shooting down these aircraft was better than letting them go on until they reached their destination.
     
     Mobilizing the military nationally is about the potential of other jets around the country.
     
     Which we know now in hindsight, there were.
     
     Even so, if there is two, there's no reason not to act like there is more with a wide array of targets.
     
     And because I don't grant psychic powers to Mr. Bush, I assert that he should have moved immediately to find out more about the situation. And that his not doing so constitutes a failure in leadership on his part.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     Hmmm....I dont think anyone believes things could'nt have been handled more smoothly, but it's hard at this point to even recall the sense of (false) invulnerability the US held prior to 9/11.
     
     Here's a withering rebuke on Moore's new movie:
     http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
     
     Many valid points are brought up.
      

     ---

     Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
     
     

     
     [*]We live in an age of terror

     ---

     Not before Sept 11, we didn't. And "age of terror" is certainly hyping things up a wee bit.
     
     Unless this is quoting something that I'm unaware of, in which case, continue.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     It may be a bit of an overstatement. But I don't think that one can deny the increased use of terror tatics even before 9-11.
     
     Because of the WTC bombing in 1993, one can't even say that the 9-11 attacks were the first non-domestic terror attacks on U.S. soil.
     
     And I should imagine that most people had heard the name Bin Laden prior to 9-11 would have understood him to be a terrorist, though I have no data to back that up. I don't wonder too much why everyone thinks "terror attack" when things happen like the shuttle blowing up, and I don't think that pre 9-11 it was much different.
     
     However, I will grant that the statement is a bit of an overreach on my part. But I still can't understand why Mr. Bush would continue with a photo op and not want to figure out what happened. Even prior to 9-11 it's certainly reasonable to think that a plane hitting the WTC might be a terror attack.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     I'd never heard of Bin Laden before 9/11- I dont know of anyone who had, really.
     
     There was an increased number of attacks abroad but the worst terrorist strike was (at that time) the ATF bombing and that was a domestic attack.
     I dont think anyone was considering civillian centers to be a high risk at that point.
     Though security had been elevated in government buildings before 9/11.
      

     ---

     Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
     I'd never heard of Bin Laden before 9/11- I dont know of anyone who had, really.

     ---

     I had heard of Bin Laden as that's the guy they were going after when they sent those Tomahawks into the aspirin factories. The guy who'd masterminded the embassy attacks. I mean I didn't know much about him, but I'd definitely heard of him.
      

     ---

     Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
      
     I'd definitely heard of him, too, because of the embassy bombings (I think I mentioned him in the Officer's Lounge before the attacks, IIRC). However, on 9/11, when I said "it might be bin Laden," people looked at me and said "Who?"
      

     ---

     Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
      
     More to the point--and correct me if I'm wrong--but Bush had heard of him, and been specifically told that he planned to hijack some airplanes and crash them into buildings.
     
     
     Marian
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     Here is an article on the subject.
     
     

     quote:

     ---

     Who Was Really In Charge?
     Did Bush know Cheney had given orders to down airliners on September 11? The commission staff wonders�and remains at odds with both men over alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda ties.
     
     June 28 issue - America was under attack, and somebody had to make a decision. Dick Cheney, huddled in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House, had just urged the traveling George W. Bush not to return to Washington. The president had left Florida aboard Air Force One at 9:55 a.m. on 9/11 "with no destination at take-off," as last week's 9-11 Commission report noted. Nor had Bush given any known instructions on how to respond to the attacks. Now Cheney faced another huge decision on a morning in which every minute seemed monumental. The two airliners had already crashed into the Twin Towers, another into the Pentagon. Combat air patrols were aloft, and a military aide was asking for shoot-down authority, telling Cheney that a fourth plane was "80 miles out" from Washington. Cheney didn't flinch, the report said. "In about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing," he gave the order to shoot it down, telling others the president had "signed off on the concept" during a brief phone chat. When the plane was 60 miles out, Cheney was again informed and again he ordered: take it out.
     
     Then Joshua Bolten, after what he described in testimony as "a quiet moment," spoke up. Bolten, the White House deputy chief of staff, asked the veep to get back in touch with the president to "confirm the engage order." Bolten was clearly subordinate to Cheney, but "he had not heard any prior conversation on the subject with the president," the 9/11 report notes. Nor did the real-time notes taken by two others in the room, Cheney's chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby�who is known for his meticulous record-keeping�or Cheney's wife, Lynne, reflect that such a phone call between Bush and Cheney occurred or that such a major decision as shooting down a U.S. airliner was discussed. Bush and Cheney later testified the president gave the order. And national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and a military aide said they remembered a call, but gave few specifics. The report concluded "there is no documentary evidence for this call."
     
     Daniel Klaidman and Michael Hirsh, Newsweek

     ---

     
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     If he gave the order to shoot it down though, what was'nt it done?
     80 miles out is still pretty close by a jet's velocity.
     
     Mna, I really ewant to see the movie now: more for my date's POV (she argues very sexily) than Moore's perspective though.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
      
     "...she argues very sexily..."
     
     Eh...I'm sure they never thought this could be a date movie, but hey, prove them wrong.
      

     ---

     Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
      
     Nothing like making out to the dulcet tones of a bearded fat man talking politics...
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     We argued over America's motives at a blues bar (she says all voters only care about their pocketbooks and the moral issues in an election are at best secondary) and then we were holding hands and she had my finger in her mouth....
     
     Man, I really like her a lot.
     
     
     Plus, my birthday is next sunday and I'm hoping to spend it with her.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
      
     This sounds like a comedy sketch.
     
     ...or a moveon.org ad.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     No not comedy: though everyone at work probably thinks I got laid a dozen times (when in truth it was our first date and everything was pretty innocent) from my goofy smile I cant get rid of.
     
     Man, it's the best to be with someone new and intresting.
     
     
     Micheal Moore should do a film about love: it'd be a challenge to himself to edit it a way to make republicans appear responsible for all breakups.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
      
     "she had my finger in her mouth"
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     Well, yeah....otherwise innnocet.
     I lost sleep over that part though.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
      
     Okay, great.
     
     So, Bush and Michael Moore: Back to the topic.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     Feel left out?
     
     As to Moore, I have'nt seen any more interviews since the Today show.
     
     I think that one took him off guard a bit (and his website now features an article attacking Matt Lauer for the interview).
     
     Anyone seen Moore in interviews in the past week or so?
     
     EDIT: looks like he's going to be on CNN in an hour or so: I'll try to stay up and watch.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     ug...someone please watch this interview: I'm falling asleep.
     
     'Night.
      

     ---

     Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
      
     Looked through Michael Moore's website, and I couldn't find any article about Matt Lauer. Maybe I missed it?
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     It was'nt by him personally.
     
     Search for "Today show interview" -that's how I came across it.
     I guess Moore could have websites full of fanatical devotees that just talk crap.
     (shrug)
     
     
     Anyway, I DID manage to see the interview this morning: it was really brief and they showed a clip from the movie when Moore wanted to talk more.
     That sucked: I wanted to hear more from him.
     
     The clip was of him rushing up to congressmmen and asking them to support an amendment making their kids the first into any war situation (that's where he clipped the congressman's reply about his two kids serving in Afghanistan).
     Moore insists on is facts that "only one congressman has a kid servinng in Iraq but they'll send everyone else's" but just because they're not serving in Iraq now, does not mean they never served or are not serving in harm's way.
     Nice little omission.
     
     Moore says his next target for film is the "pharmicutical corperations and the insurance industry".
     
     Getting opposing facts (or rebuking Moore) on that will be insanely unpopular.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
      
     Michael Moore is, by far, my favorite American. Well, I like the Macho Man Randy Savage, too.
     
     Fuck Ronald Reagan.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus:
     
     Fuck Ronald Reagan.

     ---

     Now that he's dead or metaphorically?
      

     ---

     Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
      
     Go get you finger sucked, you lazy cod. You're just mad because Michael Moore loves America more than you do. Here's the link to the Matt Lauer interview. Take some time, read the whole thing. Also

     quote:

     ---

     ...that's where he clipped the congressman's reply about his two kids serving in Afghanistan

     ---

     This one?
     

     quote:

     ---

     Transcript of Interview with Rep. Mark Kennedy:
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY How are you doing?
     
     MM: I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Is there any way you could help me with that?
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How would I help you?
     
     MM: Pass it out to other members of congress.
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. Especially those who voted for the war.
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
     
     MM: Because there is only one member who has a kid over there in Iraq. This is Corporal Henderson, he is helping me out here.
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: How are you, good to see you.
     
     MM: There it is, it's just a basic recruitment thing. Encourage especially those who were in favor of the war to send their kids. I appreciate it.
     
     CONGRESSMAN KENNEDY: Okay, bye.

     ---

     Well one kid. A nephew. You know? Almost the same thing.
     
     I saw the movie today with my folks. Monday matinee and the theater was packed. We had to sit int he front row. The line for the next showing ran out across the lobby. Oh, the film definitely had an opinion/agenda, but by and large, Moore let people hang themselves with their own words. There was definitely some manipulative editing going on, but then, that's not really an argument against a film whose intent is to influence is it?
     
     Moore asks some very difficult questions about the motives and influences of those in power (the Bush-Saudi connection, Cheney-Halliburton, etc.) and then supports them with enough evidence to give me shivers. He shows some very terrifying stuff about the things our troops are doing and having to do. But I think the most moving part and one that would be difficult to argue against is the several minutes where he unflinchingly shows the human impact these high-level military decisions are having on the people over there (US and Iraqi) and their families. If nothing else this movie should make you think. And thinking is good.
     
     Hope you score, dude.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     Saw the movie today.
     
     It suffers from it�s sledgehammer subtly. But it was a intentional polemic, so being subtle was not part of it�s mission.
     
     Some of the cheap shots were funny and well deserved, some were not.
     
     Still, in a time where political subtly is like whispering in a hurricane, Moore�s shout-at-the-top-of-his-lungs anti-Bush movie may be just what�s needed to jump-start conversations and mobilize voter turn out.
      

     ---

     Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
      
     Re: Moore: I watched The Big One off and on last night. I've always found Moore entertaining, and yet oddly off-putting. Like, there's a part where Phil Knight, CEO of Nike, invites Moore in for a chat, and the two of them make nice and such, but you get the sense that all of it, from both men, is totally disingenuious. I don't know, I guess I just like seeing people being polite and finding common ground.
     
     (Though, OK, what is wrong with these CEOs? Moore suggests that Nike is complicit in various East Timor-related atrocities, and Knight just sort of makes vague nods towards free markets leading to free...well, people. But, come on, shouldn't someone so plugged in to the capitalist system be able to come up with a better off-the-cuff defense?)
     
     (Also, I feel sorry for all those receptionists and security guards.)
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     I still gotta see the movie: I saw Spider-Man 2 tonight nad left feeling great.
     
     I think I'll feel pissed off and slightly ill after F911 (either from the points he makes or the way he makes them).
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     I was upset when I left.
     
     Not for the cheap shots, or the general tone of the movie. Being a avid blog reader, I'd heard about much, though not all, of what Mr. Moore flogs in the movie.
     
     I was upset about:
     
     
     1. A short piece of film
        
        I'd seen it before, so I don't think I'm giving away anything. In it, Mr. Bush is talking to a group at some sort of white tie function and he calls them the haves and the have mores. He continues and says that some folks call them the elite, but he calls them his base.
        
        It drove home the disparity of wealth in this country and how those running it do so more for the haves and the have mores than they do for the rest of us. Lest I rant too much, I'll just say that corporatism is something that we are going to have to deal with in the United States at some point.
        
        
     2. Iraq
        
        I don't really think I need to go any more into the lies and the callous way this administration took the United States into the conflict.
        
        Still, I was reminded of those things, and it upset me all over again.
     
      

     ---

     Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
      
     That's why I would go and see it.
     
     Jay, you said: "Still, in a time where political subtly is like whispering in a hurricane, Moore�s shout-at-the-top-of-his-lungs anti-Bush movie may be just what�s needed to jump-start conversations and mobilize voter turn out."
     
     My country, and many other european countries, were at an alltime low as for "getting off ass and go voting" in the last EU-economy vote a month ago.
     So I would welcome any Moore-counterpart whipping up motivation and initiative in Europe, sadly we don't have an isolated Bush-counterpart to work against, so not much struggle anywhere.
     Everyone's doing the best they can, but it takes such time to establish a new official league of countries. Much paperwork...
      

     ---

     Posted by Tora Ziyal (Member # 53) on :
      
     Originally I wasn't planning on seeing this movie, but after hearing more about it and reading Roger Ebert's review,
     I think I'll go see it after all.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     The review really highlights Moore's thinly-veiled attack on Bush and his administration.
     
     I am going to see the film because it also shows alleged connections that the mainstream media has not, but if someone with as much savvy and zeal as Moore were to do such an expose' on Micheal Moore, I'd bet it would'nt look too good either.
     
     Highlighting the gross and embarassing moments (like the spin-comb thing) undermines the film's message nad shows his own obvious bias.
     
     Some "documentary".
      

     ---

     Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
      
     Um, thinly-veiled?
     
     "Hey, here is this movie that suggests that the President of United States has screwed everything up."
     
     "This movie is nothing but constant suggestions that the President of the United States has screwed everything up! Some movie about how the President of the United States has screwed everything up this is."
     
     I mean, truth in advertising.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
      
     "This movie is less about Independence Day than it is about aliens blowing up America. WFT?!@"
      

     ---

     Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
     ...but if someone with as much savvy and zeal as Moore were to do such an expose' on Micheal Moore, I'd bet it would'nt look too good either.

     ---

     Yeah, I guess maybe it's a good thing he's just a loud, over-weight, bearded guy from Michigan with a French film trophy and not, say, the President of the United States of America.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Balaam Xumucane:
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
     ...but if someone with as much savvy and zeal as Moore were to do such an expose' on Micheal Moore, I'd bet it would'nt look too good either.

     ---

     Yeah, I guess maybe it's a good thing he's just a loud, over-weight, bearded guy from Michigan with a French film trophy and not, say, the President of the United States of America.

     ---

     Too bad this loud, over-weight, bearded guy from Michigan with a French film trophy's opinion will doubtlessly sway many voters.
     
     Too bad most viewers wont even try to research the validity of Moore's claims (be they true or not) nad will sheepishly accept whatever is presented as unbiased fact.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
     Too bad this loud, over-weight, bearded guy from Michigan with a French film trophy's opinion will doubtlessly sway many voters.
     
     Too bad most viewers wont even try to research the validity of Moore's claims (be they true or not) nad will sheepishly accept whatever is presented as unbiased fact.

     ---

     Be sure not to blame the electorate at all for being ill informed and easily manipulated.
      

     ---

     Posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus (Member # 239) on :
      
     Michael Moore > Jason Abbadon
      

     ---

     Posted by deadcujo (Member # 13) on :
      
     I've never liked Michael Moore or his projects, and his likeness to Peter Jackson is just creepy.
      

     ---

     Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :
      
     Actually, I think Moore is older than Jackson, so you should to be shot in the ass.
      

     ---

     Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Ultra Klackrent Zlatan Magnus:
     Michael Moore > Jason Abbadon

     ---

     You love me so.
      

     ---

     Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
      
     

     "...his likeness to Peter Jackson is just creepy."

     
     They're both overweight, bearded film directors? By that comparison, I suppose they're both the modern-day embodiments of Orson Welles.
      

     ---

     Posted by deadcujo (Member # 13) on :
      
     Exactly.
      

     ---

     Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
      
     Well, when you put it that way...
      

     ---

     Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
      
     

     quote:

     ---

     Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful:
     
     My country, and many other european countries, were at an alltime low as for "getting off ass and go voting" in the last EU-economy vote a month ago.
     So I would welcome any Moore-counterpart whipping up motivation and initiative in Europe, sadly we don't have an isolated Bush-counterpart to work against, so not much struggle anywhere.
     Everyone's doing the best they can, but it takes such time to establish a new official league of countries. Much paperwork...

     ---

     Well, we did try in the UK with Robert Kilroy Silk. Unfortunately, I don't think he was supposed to be funny...
      

     ---

     
     
     © 1999-2024 Charles Capps
     
     Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3