Jump to content

Fahrenheit 9/11


August1991

Recommended Posts

I think you have proved that you understand my point while thiking you were posting anti Bush staements.

See, my point is that no matter who is in charge, events will by and large be the same. Such are the safeguards laid in place by the democratic process. Bush did not do this on his own, he did it with the help of Republicans and Democrats alike through the Senate and Congress.

As for being a puppet, yes. Like every high profile leader he is by and large just that in things not directly associated with being the President - like flying a large aircraft, or being a security specalist, or navigating an aircraft. In these aspects he relies on others to do that while he gets briefings from those who have things to tell him.

I imagine that on Airforce One that day he did not know where he was going, I imagine that the fifty odd staff that accompanied him did. I imagine that he didn't fly the plane himself, you probably think he did. If you were in his place, would put off briefings on national security and the overall situation to find out what airport you were flying to? If you would then you wouldn't make much of a president.

Did you know that Kerry didn't have time to get a crutial security briefing the other day because he had much more importent things to atend to like Whoopie Goldbergs jokes? Larry King knew about the Al Queda threat as did the press. Kerry didn't, but that is his job as the head of the Democratic party. If he can't take that postition serriously then how can he the postion of the President? That's what a thinking person does, one who doesn't know that a president is supposed to be handled so that he can give full attention to his office, not the pilots.

That is why, some have asked; "How does Bush talk, when Cheney is drinking water?"

Now this is where you show you get it. See, he makes no decision on his own. If he falls, the office goes to the number two man and so on. The policies would be the same so in effect, he is dispensable. If you choose to call it a puppet, so be it. If Churchill fell, there would be every effort to ensure that a replacement puppet would be found. Here, we have one - Cheny. If he falls then there is another and so on and forth.

He had to go practise his "serious look" in the mirror before addressing the public.

All great speakers practised. Kerry should do some, his monotone diatribes put people to sleep. He should take a lesson from GW and get some life into his rants. I suppose that if he doesn't think his audience is worth the best, he gives his usual Al Gore imitation mediocre performance.

Really though, Kerry would do better to pick a point to hit Bush with and then go into his own policies with a bit more detail. Show us all how he plans to defeat terrorism and make Iraq free better than Bush. The economy, what is he going to do exactly? things like that. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your rationalizations for Bush's actions are pathetic and desperate. I really don't care. My opinions and ideas prior to this invasion are all coming true. Others are jumping on bandwagon and realizing the truth and how they were decieved. Even Harper (Probably because he knew he couldn't get elected dog catcher supporting those views in Canada)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not rationalization Ceasar, I just know how authority is delagated in organizations. For example, the President and CEO of GM does not begin his day by scrubbing the lunch room toilet in the assembly plant. He leaves that to others while he goes over reports on profit and loss. If he is inspecting one of the many plants and there is a fire alarm, he probably does not even know where the assembly area is and would have to follow the plant managers direction on that.

Same as if Paul Martin came to your home town to do a visit, does he pull out a street map and tell his driver where to go or does he do everythng by memory, a photographic one at that of a place he has never heard of?

I was a radioman for the Brigade General duing my carrear in the service, when we went out to visit units he concentrated on the overall situation and left details to myself, his assistant, Brigade Seargeant Major and bodyguards. He never once drove the APC or Jeep, never once passed the ammo, never once stood in line waiting for coffee, in short, he did his job while we took care of all the details to give him unfettered opportunity to do his job.

My opinions and ideas prior to this invasion are all coming true.

They are? Never once have you touched on the violations Iraq made in the human rights portions of the UN resolutions nor have you mentioned that they never provided a complete accounting of their WMD programmes. Instead, they violate UN law by submitting a report that Dr Hans Blix himself acknowleged was incomplete and doctored with pages photocopied and renumbered to pretend they were origional and even used the word 'deception.'

If anybody had told me a year and a half ago that Iraq would have it's own transitional government toda, passing laws that are unpopular with the US y I would not have believed it. You are more optomistic than I ever was. Kudos!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I would like to hear one conservative on this forum instead of, skipping around the issue, attempting to prove that Fahrenheit 911 was "spliced," all that ridiculous nonsense, to address some of the issues in the movie.

This website is titled fifty nine deceits in fahrenheit 911, and it is among many others found on the web.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, I would like to hear one conservative on this forum instead of, skipping around the issue, attempting to prove that Fahrenheit 911 was "spliced," all that ridiculous nonsense, to address some of the issues in the movie.

There are enough flagrant abuses of journalistic integrity in the movie to preclude it from being a factual documentary. If a hole can be found here and there, which other points he is making that are false? If it is that good of a work then it must be iron clad, not swiss cheese.

Read the link provided above, if, afterwards, you find nothing sinsiter or questionable in Moore's movie that makes you think his agenda is anything but the truth, then I will know why all the leftist arguments on this subject are weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush doesn't decide what time he wakes up in the morning, it is handled by his handlers.
Sorry, you're wrong. Bush does decide what time he wakes up, if he wants to decide.
Not rationalization Ceasar, I just know how authority is delagated in organizations. For example, the President and CEO of GM does not begin his day by scrubbing the lunch room toilet in the assembly plant.
The decision to fly to North Dakota, or sit in a schoolroom, was not like deciding to scrub a toilet.
I imagine that on Airforce One that day he did not know where he was going, I imagine that the fifty odd staff that accompanied him did.
That's absurd. Of course Bush knew.
You want somebody to go to the White House and shout 'Kill Me?' hire Whoopie Goldberg. This is reality, not theatrics. 
I didn't say he should have done that. But the presidency is in part theatrics.

*******

Kennedy made the decision not to use the bubble top, despite being warned. Thatcher decided to go to the hotel, despite being warned. Churchill chose to fly, despite being warned.

Leadership means believing strongly enough in something that you go ahead despite the risks. It means having the wisdom to know when to take the risk.

KK, you talk of Brigadier-Generals. Have you never sat in a room when a leader walks in? Have you never seen someone pause and say, "No, we're not going to do it" when everyone else has just said it was a great idea?

Where did Giulani go that day? What did he do? Rumsfeld went down to help people in the wreckage.

I don't know what Bush should have done that day but staying in Nebraska the whole afternoon strikes me as senseless. Even Jimmy Carter wouldn't have done that.

These are the real values that our country is founded on, and I'm willing to talk about those values -- not their little political, hot-button, cultural, wedge-driven, poll-driven values. Americans have had enough of that game, and we're going to show that in the course of this race

Kerry in the Washington Post

The Dems are going to hit Bush with this. Maybe it will work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, you're wrong.  Bush does decide what time he wakes up, if he wants to decide.

No, I'm right. He is given an agenda each day and he adheres to that schedule. If he doesn't then he is not fit to own a bycycle repair shop much less occupy the office of President. BTW, there are lots of options there for him to change, he is under no obligation to follow it to the letter. Like a doctor's secretary making appointments. His time is valuable and if he is ging to meet with some Ambassador at 9:15, he had better be shaved and dressed in time to make it, othwise, he sets the whole day off with sucessive appointments.

The decision to fly to North Dakota, or sit in a schoolroom, was not like deciding to scrub a toilet.

Of course not. However, Bush is a politician, not a security specialist. He went along with the 'suggestions.' To tell me that Bush physically made every decision in the USA that day would be stupid. Which ones did he make and which ones were those of his specialitsts or those assigned for security of his person? If he made the decisions to fly to ND then I would doubt his ability to handle any situation. Things that must be delagated are usually the PResidents own security. Otherwise, he would be walking around with a freakin' 'Tommy Gun' in his hads.

That's absurd.  Of course Bush knew.

I wrote that with the lowest common denominator in mind. As an illustration do you know what city and town you are flying over when you travel from Montreal to Vancouver? Of course he knew, but at best, he was given the general idea, not the actual play by play details. He had other things to do like try to find out what was going on and direct things.

Kennedy made the decision not to use the bubble top, despite being warned.  Thatcher decided to go to the hotel, despite being warned.  Churchill chose to fly, despite being warned.

Leadership means believing strongly enough in something that you go ahead despite the risks.  It means having the wisdom to know when to take the risk.

And they also had the luxury of time to think. This was a very confusing day (unless you were in on the attack) and so to say that his first instinct was this or that is BS. Maybe it was, maybe his handlers had to tie him up and drag him to the plane. I doubt it but if you were a security specialist confronted with this unique problem what would your advice be? Mine would be to get the main man the hell out of there. His job is to listen to experts, not fight them.

KK, you talk of Brigadier-Generals.  Have you never sat in a room when a leader walks in?  Have you never seen someone pause and say, "No, we're not going to do it" when everyone else has just said it was a great idea?

No, of course not. That situation does not arise though as there are SOPs in place so as few decisions as possible have to be made on the fly. And that is what happened here. A state of national emergency, suddenly, without warning. Not seen creeping towards us like Nazi Germany. As for Guliani, he is Mayor of NYC, not president of the United States. If Bush had gone to NYC what would you say if there was an attack on Seattle? Easy, you would say that he didn't do his job as president of the USA and make the observation that he is not the Mayor of New York.

I don't know what Bush should have done that day but staying in Nebraska the whole afternoon strikes me as senseless.

I don't know either. I'm sure that his fifty or so advisors were working on it as he got briefing after briefing afte briefing to find out what the hell was goin on. He wouldn't get that information sifting throug wreckage with a hard hat on. And who would you have in charge while he manned a shovel?

Your link was a pay site. Is there another or can you quote the part you are putting forth for discussion? If it is news we can find it somewhere else after. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm right. He is given an agenda each day and he adheres to that schedule.
KK, are you always that block-headed? Did Bush follow his agenda on Sept 11?
However, Bush is a politician, not a security specialist. He went along with the 'suggestions.' To tell me that Bush physically made every decision in the USA that day would be stupid.
He didn't have to follow those suggestions, if that's what happened.
Of course he knew, but at best, he was given the general idea, not the actual play by play details. He had other things to do like try to find out what was going on and direct things.
Bush gave the order to fly to Nebraska, after being advised. There is no way that plane would have taken off without his nod of approval at some point.
I doubt it but if you were a security specialist confronted with this unique problem what would your advice be? Mine would be to get the main man the hell out of there. His job is to listen to experts, not fight them.
On the contrary, the good politicians tell the security people to stuff it.

The security and military types typically take the heavy-handed, unoriginal appraoch. They usually have no concept of optics. IOW, they are not politicians.

Look, KK, I just don't see someone like Thatcher or Trudeau flying away like that. Rumsfeld didn't go running to some bunker some place. These kinds of leaders dominate the situation. That's why they were/are leaders.

Bush Jnr isn't like that. I think he lacks courage.

The quote is from the recent Kerry-Edwards interview in the NYT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK, are you always that block-headed?  Did Bush follow his agenda on Sept 11? 

I know he didn’t. If the SOP for attack on the US is for the president to run to take on the attackers personally then he did not follow SOPs. SOPs are in place for the unexpected so that people have some point to start from.

He didn't have to follow those suggestions, if that's what happened.

And if he didn’t then he is stupid. Should the president put himself in danger when the situation is unknown? You listed Churchill, did he know what was going on when he flew? In the case of 911, if you knew what was going on and how many planes were involved on that day, you were the only one. If your SOP is to immediately place your highest piece in danger when an attack occurs, thank God you are only a poster on an internet forum and not in charge of anything.

Bush gave the order to fly to Nebraska, after being advised.  There is no way that plane would have taken off without his nod of approval at some point.

I can picture it. “Mr President, we have no way of knowing what may be the next target, possibly it may be you in the white house or they may be tracking this Air Craft specifically. I recommend we go to the nearest, yet least occupied airspace available. North Dakota or whatever (insert remote space.)”

Bush - Looks around at three or four staff members who are discussing this matter and gets their view on it. All concur. “No. I have no idea of what is going on yet feel that we have to go, ah, ..... go ..... go .....Well, go somewhere,. I got it! Let’s fly this puppy to NYC, they like planes there today. With any luck, there will be no more aircraft attacking and I can tell everybody that I have no freakin’ clue of what is going on. Or better yet, the White House, let’s go there just in case another aircraft hits there. If it doesn’t then once again, I can get on TV and tell everybody that I have no freakin’ clue of what is going on”

On the contrary, the good politicians tell the security people to stuff it.

Well, good ones in your book. If that were the case, the President would be handed a 45 and a few grenades on his inaugeration. Using the CEO analogy again, where does the CEO belong when there is trouble on the plant floor? With a wrench in his hand, wringing his hands while he watches maintenance crews work, or in his office getting briefings from section heads to analize the problem, co-ordinate resources and then issue orders for the whole company to rectify it? Now picture the head decision maker dodging bullets and God knows what else while he is trying to get briefings and make an unemotional decision, can’t be done. The days of leading from the front at a senior level went out with the Charge of The Light Brigade and non sight based communications. Especially when we are dealing with and UNKNOWN. Remember, an unknown? That is the key word. If Bush knew there were only four planes I am sure he would have done something different.

Bush Jnr isn't like that.  I think he lacks courage.

You may or may not be right. I said he was a slacker in the 70s and probably afraid to go to war. That does not mean a lack of courage but rather a lack of self control. Courage is something you cannot predict and if you are not afraid to go to war then you need your head read in a serious way. If courage is determined by throwing your life away when the whole country depends on you then I call it foolhardy at least and grossly irresponsible. You seem to think that high level leaders are dispensable, I don’t. Especially in times of confusion. When the dust settles a day or two later sure, but in the heat of battle they are better protected leaving trained people in charge.

As for courage, if you associate nerve with courage, he laid his whole career on the line, twice. The results are still to be seen and judged. That takes a lot more nerve than you or I will ever have to face hopefully.

Still didn’t get your quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the president put himself in danger when the situation is unknown?

Well if the situation is unknown, maybe the president might have wanted to find more info about it? Could he have found out more about the situation in North Dakota? No. He ran trying to save his own hide and you know it. A good leader would have rushed back to Washington, gotten his briefing and quickly thought about what to do without regards for his own safety.

I can picture it. “Mr President, we have no way of knowing what may be the next target, possibly it may be you in the white house or they may be tracking this Air Craft specifically.
Should the president put himself in danger when the situation is unknown?

Nonsense, but then again you were thinking hypothetically. The terrorists undoubtedly would have known if the President was in the White House if they really wanted to kill Bush by bombing it. At that time, Bush wasn't in the White House, so they probably wouldn't bomb it, once again, assuming that Bush himself is in danger. But they wouldn't really know when Bush would be coming back, so to coordinate an attack on the White House based on that would be stupid. Air Force One is accompanied by military aircraft so there's no real threat there.

Bush made a lot of Americans lose respect for him, there's no denying that fact. A leader who is concerned only for his own life is no leader at all. Is it stupid for someone to dive into a raging river to save someone else's life? Is it stupid for someone to risk one's life? Apparently, you think so. In Bush's case, he had to risk his life to take charge of the situation by returning to Washington but he couldn't do it. He is a coward who ran from the situation, hoping in the future that despite this pathetic act of incompetence, people like you would sympathize for his safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.A good leader would have rushed back to Washington, gotten his briefing and quickly thought about what to do without regards for his own safety.

When the US is under attack, the last thing we need is for it’s command structure to be under attack. Are you telling me that the US would have been better off with Bush under attack? Are you saying that the US can afford to take that chance? A good leader does not chance the command of his whole structure to suit vanity. Do you take your life savings to Vegas to show how cool you are? Why not, it landed on black over eighty thousand time yesterday, yet, you didn’t take that chance? Could it be you couldn’t afford the loss for your family:? Coward.

Nonsense, but then again you were thinking hypothetically. The terrorists undoubtedly would have known if the President was in the White House if they really wanted to kill Bush by bombing it.

They would have? At the time the President left Washington they were just getting up or standing in a ticket lineup. The night before they were getting drunk in a strip bar. When did they get their final briefing? Over a week before through an anonymous internet connection. The aircraft that crashed south of Jonestown was headed for the White House or Washington. It was on the flight path. If they wanted Bush himself and had intelligence, they would have headed for the school. Are you telling me that they only wanted to hit buildings and had no aspirations of killing Bush? Bush, the man that even a good percentage of Americans from the left would like to see dead?

At that time, Bush wasn't in the White House, so they probably wouldn't bomb it,

Where was the plane that crashed south of Jonestown headed? Was it the only plane that had hijackers on board that did not have a target? After years of planing, months of rehearsals, they still had no target. Hmmmm, good theory.

once again, assuming that Bush himself is in danger.

President of the most powerful country on earth. And you work on assumptions of his safety? Don’t ever look for a job in security or investment, you assume too much for things that have to be 100% sure..

But they wouldn't really know when Bush would be coming back, so to coordinate an attack on the White House based on that would be stupid. Air Force One is accompanied by military aircraft so there's no real threat there.

LOL, first you say they wouldn’t know if he was there, now you are saying they knew he was not there. You sure give them credit and at other times give them no credit, which is it? Where is Air force one at this moment? You don’t know do you? How many aircraft accompany it - right now? Who is on board it? Is it Air force two right now and Air force one is a Black Hawk on the lawn at the White House? Common, you know and just are not telling us. You say the terrorists knew, so you must know a little. Here, make it easy, deal with the past. Which aircraft was Airforce One yesterday? Where was it, not where it will be but where it was at say ....... two pm Washington time? Get back in less than five minutes after I post and I might say you are not out to lunch. And don’t forget to include where Asirforce two was, you know, the back up incase there is a problem with Airforce one. Which types of Aircraft were they at two pm yesterday? And where?

Bush made a lot of Americans lose respect for him, there's no denying that fact.

And there is no denying the fact that most of them had no respect for him in the first place. As well, he also gained a lot of respect so your statement is bullshit.

A leader who is concerned only for his own life is no leader at all.

How do you know he was concerned for his own life? How do you know that his first reaction was not to fly Air force one into a ....... into a ....... into well ..... well ....... hmmmm..... sit back and find out what the hell was going on while ensuring that the head of the most powerfuo country on earth was not in danger?

Is it stupid for someone to dive into a raging river to save someone else's life? Is it stupid for someone to risk one's life? Apparently, you think so.

And which raging river did you dive into on Sept 11? LOL, you didn’t did you. You sat by the radio, tv whatever and watched in horror as Bush flew around getting intelligence briefings to understand what was going on long before you had an inkling. Long before you booked your ticket to ..... to ..... to ....well, whatever place you were going to go to do something like dive into a river to save ...well, somebody. You are so full of shit and frustration that it makes me laugh.

In Bush's case, he had to risk his life to take charge of the situation by returning to Washington but he couldn't do it.

What is Air force One? I think it is the command center for the US government in transit. The Command Center when the White House is under attack. Are you telling me that the Aircraft that crashed in Pa was no threat to the White House? And, are you trying to tell us all, here, that you knew that it was never a threat at all with enough fuel on board to fly to anywhere withing a two thousand mile radius?

What does a prize fighter do when he is against the ropes? He covers up and protects himself and his assets with gloves over the face and arms and elbows against the sides. He doesn’t open up and walk over to the coach and wipe the sweat off the coaches face while his opponent takes him out, he recovers and strikes back. You feel that America would have been better served by the head of state endangering himself? And what if an aircraft had taken out the president if he had returned to Washington? That would have served what purpose? The country under a new president in the middle of an attack. Wow, you have balls or else you are one big idiot..

He is a coward who ran from the situation, hoping in the future that despite this pathetic act of incompetence, people like you would sympathize for his safety.

Got to hear your version of what you would have done. Give it to us and I will give you reasons why you should not have. Should be easy to make you look like the most ineffectual, yet bravest head of state scince Joe Clarke. Lay it on Rambo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good leader does not chance the command of his whole structure to suit vanity.

Wrong, KK. A good political leader and a good military leader are not the same thing.

Politics is often about optics. (Politicians lead citizens; generals lead soldiers.) There is no chain of command in politics. There no SOPs in civilian life. True, they exist but politicians regularly throw them out if they feel the situation warrants it.

Simply stated, Giuliani was praised for what he did immediately after these attacks. I have never seen anything commending Bush for his actions. In fact, Moore has made a movie ridiculing Bush for his inaction.

I don't know if it's lack of courage, lack of originality or both.

*****

The quotes I was looking for came from the Kerry-Edwards interview. One said how they planned to attack Bush on values. I think this is code for his Vietnam record and so on. The other quote said that the Dems would pursue the war on terror also.

As you've noted, the Euro-Left is extremely mistaken if they think a Kerry win would mean a withdrawal from Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is often about optics.  (Politicians lead citizens; generals lead soldiers.)  There is no chain of command in politics.  There no SOPs in civilian life.  True, they exist but politicians regularly throw them out if they feel the  situation warrants it.

So in effect you say that there is only one leader with no chain of command. And that one guy should throw a country of two hundred fifty million on the line so you can see his mug on TV. Wow. And as for SOPs, you figure that they don’t mean squat. Are you any higher up than a shoveller in some company someplace? If so, how do you operate without SOPs? What do you do when your boss is gone, hope you are doing the job right or is it so simple that only one or two movements is all it takes? Or if you are leader, do your followers all connect with you by telepathy when you are not there? Or do they use SOPs and throw them out the window whenever the shit hit the fan. The time they are most important, the time that they have been written, and re-written, and re-analized, and re-written for?

OK, Bush is where? LA, the White House? What is he doing? On TV telling us that the nation has been attacked and he is trying to figure out what the heck is going on? How reassuring. And even more reassuring is if the place gets taken out by an Aircraft. Wow, you rock. Cheney in charge! And for what, so Bush can tell you he doesn’t know? Or is it the mud on the face as he pulls a body out that would do it for you, while the potential for the leader of the USA to get taken out exists you need to see him doing that. I wouldn’t. I would assume that at all times there is command and control in America, in fact, if I were a US citizen I would question anything or anybody that prohibited that.

Simply stated, Giuliani was praised for what he did immediately after these attacks.  I have never seen anything commending Bush for his actions.  In fact, Moore has made a movie ridiculing Bush for his inaction.

Guilianni rules an enclosed geographical area. It’s marked by bridges and water. He didn’t run over to the Pentagon, he didn’t run off to Jonetown, he controlled his turf. Good for him. I would have done the same thing believe it or not as I was the same way. I did not see, nor ever did see anything extraordinary about his actions. They were the actions of an excellent leader. That's why he was elected and re-elected.

Bush did not have home turf to protect nor manage. His was the entire country. Tell me where on that day, pretending you were him, what and where another strike was gong to happen and tell me where you should be. Make sure you take into account that if you fall, the country will most likely go into mass panic. Where should you go? NYC? Washington, the site of a possible attack? Where?

Moore could make a movie showing Ghandi as a power hungry egotist influencing brainwashed followers to sucumb to beatings and death to fill his ego needs. Moore does fiction/comedy in order to make money and provoke thought, not report impartially. Bush to me, showed remarkable steel by not freaking out. As I stated before, he knows he has people doing whatever needs to be done. They told him what they knew, advised him in their realm of specialties, he had confidence in his people, took their advice and allowed them to do their jobs

I don't know if it's lack of courage, lack of originality or both.

Got to hear what you would have done so I can poke so many holes in it you will sink bad, hard and fast. Please, open up.

*****

The quotes I was looking for came from the Kerry-Edwards interview.  One said how they planned to attack Bush on values.  I think this is code for his Vietnam record and so on.  The other quote said that the Dems would pursue the war on terror also.

I never got the quotes. I must have missed them or never recognized them for what they are - separate quotes from the argument.

As you've noted, the Euro-Left is extremely mistaken if they think a Kerry win would mean a withdrawal from Iraq.

Yes indeed. It is only two separate groups vying to control. Not much would change for sure. Kerry would get in, and the first thing that would happen is that a third of his voters would hate him.

I have no fear of Kerry, the war on terror will continue. Minor changes is all. I would just get off on all the leftists that would waffle without a common cause. I would actually enjoy to see him get in for that alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

'Fahrenheit 9/11' Making GOP Nervous

No wonder the GOP are desperately trying to shut this movie down, as there is no question that Fahrenheit 9/11 is having a negative impact on Bush's campaign. If it impacts on 3-4% of the vote particularly in states where the race is close, as the article suggests, Bush's campaign is doomed.

And what a sick bunch of puppys the Republicans are - with all their "Freedom of Expression" nonsense. Only for themselves I suppose. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shut it down? Provide some facts please. I heard about Disney but they hardly make up the whole Republican party.

"I'm not sure if it moves voters," GOP consultant Scott Reed said, "but if it moves 3 or 4 percent it's been a success."

  Two senior Republicans closely tied to the White House said the movie from director Michael Moore is seen as a political headache because it has reached beyond the Democratic base.

From the audience:

  "You want to respect the president," Sheesley said. "It raised a lot of questions."

No answers though.

  "I guess that I think it makes me want to pursue how much of it is accurate and not just get carried away with one film," she said. "I don't hear Bush and (Vice President Dick) Cheney saying that this is incorrect."

They are too busy doing their jobs is why. When and if she does her reasearch she will find it is not all factual and possibly suspect the motives of it.

Retired college professor Dennis O'Brien, a Bush voter in 2000 and a movie buff who has seen other Moore films, said "Fahrenheit 9/11" hasn't changed his view of Bush but may well serve a larger purpose by sparking debate.

Debate in which the issues will be given fair and unbiased play in the minds of voters.

In GOP-strong Columbia, S.C., watching the movie last week at the Columbiana Grande tipped 26-year-old David Wood's support more to the left.

Bullseye for MM!

  "I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I just vote for whoever is right for the job," the University of South Carolina student said. "I think most people don't bother to really research, and all they need is something popular to sway them."

So in effect, the movie will sway those who do not know what is going on.

Others at the screening in Columbia were put off by what they saw as the film's biased approach to examining Bush and the reasons he took the country to war. For Scott Campbell, 19, the movie reinforced his apathy toward politics.

Not a bullseye.

    "We didn't even stay to see the whole thing," Campbell said. "It was one-sided."

Former Iowa Republican Chairman Michael Mahaffey said the movie's impact could be dulled over time. "It's July," he said. "Conventional wisdom will change completely every four or five weeks."

    Still, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is likely to gain an even wider audience when it's released on home video in the weeks before Election Day. The Gallup survey found that nearly half of the Republicans and independents who expect to see the film said they were likely to view it on video.

    "In all honesty, in a very close election, who knows what will sway the public?" Mahaffey said.

Exactly. It's not factual, has holes in it and makes suppositions that when scrutinized show the true aganda behind it. While likely to sway those who don't have a clue it also has admittedly sparked interest in others who, given time and research will see that it is not the truth.

My fellings on the movie are that it is pure, unadulterated bull. Will it have an effect on the election? Yes, but faily minimal I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the movie, even though I'm on the side of the Conservatives/Republicans. The movie sent too much time on the woman. Of course you're going to lose a family member in the war. Don't think you won't.

I think they should ban lighters and matches from airplanes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new here, in fact this is my first posting.

I watched F 9/11 and really enjoyed it. I always knew that Bush was an idiot, after all he was my Governor before he was awarded the Presidency by the Supreme Court.

I see that at this forum the Bush-bots are the same as on other forums I visit.

Thank God that in November we will finally send the idiot back to Crawford, Texas.

BTW, I wish one right-winger would justify Bush sitting in an elementary school like an dumb a** instead of taking charge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I wish one right-winger would justify Bush sitting in an elementary school like an dumb a** instead of taking charge?

Hi, welcome!

Not a Bush Bot but can probably add some light. See, Bush has aides and people all over himk thatdo their individual jobs. He has pilots waiting here and there, bodyguards, advisors, communications guys, the guy that carrries the 'foot ball', the guy that has his schedule, the guys that decide where he is to go in case this goes wrong and whatever else.

On that day, scince nobody knew exactly what was going on, where was he to go? Would you have preffered him to run out of the classroom and take charge by .............doing what? And doing that what where? Even nonw we know there was no clear place to go. Sure, while his guys figured out as much as they could, they got Airforce Once wound up and took the most powerful man in the free world (the guy with the nuclear football) to what his security people figured would be the safest place they could get him to in the shortest amount of time - remote airspace.

While they were getting their act together, what was he to do? Whip them? Whip the kids? Wring his hands and go 'Oh me, oh my?' No, he showedf remarkable steel and did what any good president wourld, carry on with the task at hand until it was time to act, then he allowed his people to do their jobs. I would expect that of every senior statesman.

To think that he should have flown to NYC or Washington is laughable, in time of war, when there is enemy activity and an unknown numer of them at work you do not take you most importent player and throw him in harms way unessesarily. Once you can access the threat and the action to be taken you can act, until then, you protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: "Not a Bush Bot but can probably add some light. See, Bush has aides and people all over himk thatdo their individual jobs. He has pilots waiting here and there, bodyguards, advisors, communications guys, the guy that carrries the 'foot ball', the guy that has his schedule, the guys that decide where he is to go in case this goes wrong and whatever else"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------You make him sound like someone who still needs his mommy. Poor guy can't think for himself. A question that was asked; perhaps, you have the answer. How does Bush talk when Cheney is drinking water??

Does he have someone to wipe his little bum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote: While they were getting their act together, what was he to do? Whip them? Whip the kids? Wring his hands and go 'Oh me, oh my?' No, he showedf remarkable steel and did what any good president wourld, carry on with the task at hand until it was time to act, then he allowed his people to do their jobs. I would expect that of every senior statesman."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps, that is what YOU expect; Most of us would expect him to say: "Sorry kids, I must go and take care of some serious business. Perhaps I can come back another day." Then go and get properly briefed and informed of the situation. Act like a president not a mindless dummy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sorry kids, I must go and take care of some serious business. Perhaps I can come back another day." Then go and get properly briefed and informed of the situation. Act like a president not a mindless dummy.

This is where you fail to see what the situation is. Where would the President go to get properly briefed while in a school Ceasar? The washroom? Principals office? Remember, nobody except OBL knew what was going on so there was no place to get 'properly briefed' as there was no briefing to give as the situation was unfolding.

When this came up, his aides I am sure were on the situation trying to find out whatever could be found out. Bush, while waiting for them to get it down into intelligence that could be passed onto him did what he was supposed to have done, carry on like he was supposed to. Not freak out like you would have him.

I would assume that like the PM, Bush has a team of between ten to twsenty security agents guarding him. With the school already swept As well, his higher security people were probably at that time trying to figure out where they would best place Bush to safeguard him. During those minutes I am sure that the helecopter or whatever would have been started, as well as Air Force One would have been readied as well. All in place just waiting for the security guys to figure out where they would take Bush. This I would imagine would take a few minutes at least what with assessment of airspace and travel time and all, not to mention the verifgying that there were in fact no other aircraft en route to where they would be going.

During this time, with no briefing to get, no place to go, as the school was safer than any unknown place, what and where would you place the most powerful man in the free world? And other than carrying on with what he was doing at the time, what would you have him do?

You make him sound like someone who still needs his mommy.

He is the President, not the limo driver, not the janitor, not the pilot or security specialist. He is the guy that heads the USA. He doesn't need to have his ass turned in fifty different directions in the heat of confusion. He needs to be safeguarded, then properly briefed once the situation is known so that he can make decisions rather than emotional calls.

In the army I used to be a radio man for a couple of Generals at different times. Why do you think the old fart didn't just carry his own rucksack with a twenty pound radio, spare batteries, platoon ammo and all so that going out of the aircraft he would weigh in at over 400 lbs like the rest of us? Easy, we want him to be fresh, focused and able to move to get information by which he would make crucial life and death decisions with, not dig holes. He didn't need his mommy, we needed him able to make decisions, not be confused and tired as hell like the rest of us.

You on the other hand would have Bush say 'gotta go' and then stand around outside having a smoke while everybody did their thing to figure out security, airspace allocation and a sweep of the airpace right? You would have him do that standing beside AirForce One in the middle of a tarmac like a sitting duck in the middle of an attack?

I take it you don't guard VIPs for a living. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When this came up, his aides I am sure were on the situation trying to find out whatever could be found out. Bush, while waiting for them to get it down into intelligence that could be passed onto him did what he was supposed to have done, carry on like he was supposed to.

I'm not a Bush fan (distinctly the opposite) but I don't believe in extending this bias in an irrational manner. KK you make a very valid point. If there was nothing for him to do, as yet, then why shouldn't he sit there calmy with the schoolchildren? It seems like an entirely reasonable action to undertake.

As regards Michael Moore and any project he undertakes I cannot help but view it with extreme scepticism. He has been proven to be unreliable as a source of informed criticism. I lean more to the left then the right and I'm offended that a man like this is being held up as a champion of the left by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bushmustgo,

I never meant to imply that Michael Moore had a monopoly on duplicity. I have exactly the same problem with other influential people using duplicitous techniques to push their agenda.

I don't subscribe to the argument, however, that since this happens with the right it should consequently be acceptable from the left aswell. I don't think it is acceptable from either side. Not to me personally. I like reasoned criticisms.

Lets organise to get Black Dog and KrustKidd on an international debate broadcast live... OK now I'm straying off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Allow me to give this thread a decent burial, starting with this comment:

They would have?  At the time the President left Washington they [the teerrorists] were just getting up or standing in a ticket lineup.  The night before they were getting drunk in a strip bar.

That's an example of the LIES the White House and Pentagon concocted in the wake of 9/11! Sheez, use some common sense...

You're in a foreign country where you're planning on carrying out the biggest terrorist attack in world history the next morning. You speak with a heavy accent and thus stick out like a sore thumb. You're also a devout Muslim; in fact, you're planning on meeting your maker, rather than survive the attack. So what do you do?

Go out to a strip bar and get drunk! Yeah, do everything you can to call attention to yourself. The media even said the terrorists left their ID behind!

This story is as preposterous as the claim that Bush didn't know where he was flying to on September 11. (Hint: He ran and hid in Nebraska, not NORTH DAKOTA.)

I mean, how hard is it for Bush to ask, "Where are we going?" Jesus use some simple logic, folks.

As for Bush's 9/11 classroom stunts, there are on excuses - zero, none, nada, zip. Yet right-wingers were quick to make up some excuses. As far as I know, these are the most prominent:

1. He didn't want to scare the kids. This zinger sprouted right after 9/11. To put it in perspective, my father was a volunteer firefighter. When the fire alarm rang, he jumped up and ran out the door, even if we were in the middle of dinner. He didn't worry about scaring the kids. So what's more important, a fire in a town with a population of 4,000 or an attack on the World Trade Center?

But there's a second argument against this right-wing excuse: Bush didn't have to scare the kids in the first place! He didn't have to JUMP UP. He didn't have to tell them America was under attack. All he had to do was say, "Boys and girls, as you know, the President is a very busy person. Unfortunately, I've been summoned to attend to an important matter. But I enjoyed my visit, and I hope to return some day to finish that story about the pet goat!"

No, saying the COMMANDER IN CHIEF sat on his butt because he didn't want to scare the kids is STUPID.

2. HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING. This excuse was manufactured more recently; I think I first heard it after Fahrenheit 9/11 hit the screens.

Again, this is STUPID, because Bush would have to know what was going on before he could know that he couldn't do anything. How the Hell did he know how many airliners had been hijacked? How did he know if a general or foreign leader might have tried to contacted him for advice?

To put it in perspective, imagine that Russia launches a salvo of nuclear missiles at us. Bush is informed that the missiles will strike in about two hours - and the Pentagon fears one or two of them may hit their targets.

Should the COMMANDER IN CHIEF throw up his arms, say "There's nothing I can do!" then run off and hide in Nebraska?

Again: COMMON SENSE.

Oops - I just recalled a third argument...

3. George W. Bush's life was in danger! OK, if that's true, then why did he pause for a photo op before he fled to Nebraska?

And what happened to the chain of command? If Bush was too vulnerable to act as commander in chief, somone should have replaced him - and it was Bush's responsiblity to make sure that happened. Yet the military was apparently on holiday.

COMMON SENSE.

There's another thing about Mr. Goat Story that I find interesting. Republicans insist there was nothing wrong with Bush's behavior that day. Many actually brand him a hero.

So why not promote it? When Bush ran for re-election, why didn't we see posters depicting him reading a story about a pet goat? Why didn't Republican campaign headquarters regale voters with stories of Bush's historic retreat to Nebraska?

If there's nothing to be ashamed of, why hide it?

The simple, unavoidable truth is that George W. Bush is perhaps the biggest traitor in American history. His conduct on 9/11 was so bizarre, so incomprehensible, many people would never believe it if it had not been recorded on video.

And, once again - why did Republicans howl with outrage when Michael Moore showed a clip from that video in his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11? What is there to be ashamed of - the fact that the President of the United States looked like he had been sniffing airplane glue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...