j_b

“John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002. A Fox News consultant, John Ellis, who made judgments about presidential ‘calls’ on Election Night admits he was in touch with George W. Bush and FL Gov. Jeb Bush by telephone several times during the night, but denies breaking any rules. CNN, November 14, 2000; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml. John Ellis, the Fox consultant who called Florida early for George Bush, had to stop writing about the campaign for the Boston Globe because of family ‘loyalty’ to Bush. CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/14/politics/main249357.shtml, November 14, 2000.

in turn, i have no need to say what you are. you do a perfectly good job of demonstrating it to us every single day.

One of the most obvious: Moore claims/insinuates that 'Bush flew the bin Laden family out of the US' first, does he claim it or does he insinuate it? if he says it, he says it, which is very different than what you think he insinuates. can you tell the difference? from your verbiage i am not sure if you do. anyhow, here is what f9/11 says: "“At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.” and “The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.” does he say anywhere that bush specifically authorized the flights? ... ? ....? do you mean to say that clarke was not part of the white house team? isn't bush resonsible for what his admnistration does? aren't you tired of passing the buck to someone else? i think you better check you facts or perhaps not since everyone knows that clarke was part of the bush team. i note that you take at face value what clarke says, good! shall we also discuss what clarke says about bush and counterterrorism? so clarke also claims that bush did not listen to him with respect to counterterrorism efforts but he would go about "deciding all of his own" what to do with potential terror suspects? Or is it OK for ol' Bill but not for GWB? It's not black and white like Moore paints it. you choose to see what moore says as being black and white. moore points to the bushes and cronies specific business relationship with bandar, moore points to the specific friendship between the bushes and bandar, but he also points to saudi investments in the us. the case can be made that said specific relationship combined with the overall relationship between the countries contributed to the form of the response of the bush adminsitration (the saudi businessmen are free to go with nothing more than a perfunctory interview (for some of them only) and the iraqis and afghanis are bombed back to the stone age?) no, no. moore (along with many others) says that faux news (and john ellis who 'happens' to be bush's cousin) called the election for bush when nobody, i repeat, nobody could objectively claim anything but a tie in florida. the other networks followed within minutes just for fear of being scooped. nobody can deny that it was too close to call, and that if it hadn't been called that night the outcome may well have been different. oh, but please, do go on. we'll wait for more of your "objective" truth since we all can see how it stands up to scrutiny.

hell no! moore is partisan but he does not lie.

Do you care to substantiate any of your criticisms of F9/11? I mean, if what you are saying is as obvious as you claim, you should not have any trouble providing specific examples, no? We'll be waiting anxiously to read what you come up with ....

what about wearing boots? a couple easier climbs with shorter approaches and short drives: east face of chair sw face of tooth (beckey var. at 5.6) the approach to thomson is longish.

i told you it'd be easy. andy is pretty much the only climber who can be readily identified just from the look of his lower extremities.

alright, i have an obvious one. the trademark skinny legs, heavy wool socks in rock shoes should be a dead give away:

if you feel ok downclimbing exposed 3rd class, one rope is plenty. i don't recall having to rappell the access gully the few times i have been on that ridge, even though the gully is loose.

in typical fashion: more assertions without supporting evidence. cheap.

Dustin: there is usually too much friction in the system for a single z system. a 1:6 advantage ratio is most often not enough. as for setting up anchors in hard snow: if the snow is so hard that you could not pound in a picket or an ice axe with "relative ease" it usually implies that the danger is somewhat obvious and can be readily assessed/prevented. mishaps do happen, but usually it happens to the unweary or the tired. this said, a party of 2 has undeniably less capability for rescue, that is part of the deal.

robbob: you are no different than the extremists from the other side that demonize anyone who dares thinking critically. you are unamerican.

There are different versions of the content of negotiations that took place with the taliban through summer 2001. i am certain that if you tried you'd find numerous articles, books, etc .. that provide perspectives that differ from what the bush adminiistration has to say about it. are you seriously still at the stage of accepting uncritically what bush&co say they did? no wonder you are marginalized relative to public opinion. i am not infering anything. that is what a number of reports by respected individuals say happened (and more). again if you tried you'd easily find such accounts on the web. i personally don't know how much of that is true but it is certainly as believable (and it is certainly more consistent with events) than the official version. are there plans today to construct said pipeline? are the bushies currently in bed with the dictators of central asia where large reserves of oil and gas are to be found? of course it is different. as a matter of fact opium production is reaching record highs in afghanistan today. recent developments indeed indicate that poppy cultivation is not a priority for this administration. poppycock. i certainly do not infer prior knowledge. however, if some of these stories are right, one would think that they should have been aware of the possibility of retaliation. imperial hubris and incompetence. there is no need to invoke conspiracy when inadequacy in dealing with reality does just fine in explaining what happened. huh? secret? are you missing a *not* in there? you certainly do need to see the movie to differentiate between what people say moore says and what he does indeed say (assuming your zealousness in trying to discredit him allows you to hear/see what the movie does) moore encourages anyone willing to pirate the movie off the internet.

there are no significant factual errors in F9/11. "methodological flaws"? what are you talking about? what i find most amusing is that you guys (and simon in the piece above) are precisely doing what you reproach to mmoore in f9/11. you distort what he says (for example the post 9/11 saudi flights and interviews which he got right), pretend that he infers what he does not infer (he never suggests that bush1&2 are manchurian candidates for the saudis, nor does he suggest that the house of saud per se is behind 9/11). as a matter of fact, mmoore does not make grand statements in f9/11, he mostly shows footage that we did not see, adds a few comments and facts and lets people come to their own conclusions. of course anyone with half a brain would not formulate a favorable opinon of bush on the basis of the facts presented but moore never pretended otherwise. i challenge anyone to find a unique vision of the bush/saud relationship in f9/11. people should come to different interpretations based on their prior knowledge of the subject. in that sequence, i felt he was primarily discussing the ethical conflict for individuals who were representing the state and their own financial interests, the ominous consequences of our need for oil and the enormous reality of saudi investments in the us. I would suggest again that you go see the movie so that you at least have the appearance of knowing what you are discussing but i am afraid that you'd find a way to distort f9/11 anyway.

because you want more? on the basis of the content of your posts, I think not. more posturing.

except for the negotiating that took place with the taliban up to August 01, when the bushies told them to behave or be ready to get squashed gee, it'd be the first time that the brits and others wanted the crumbs from the spoil as if you cared about iraqis ... please spare us the hypocrisy. go see the movie, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. foul! back to smearing your opponent with underhanded tactics, huh? you'd do joe mccarthy proud.

used copy on sale for $6 here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/B0002HDXTQ/ref=dp_pb_a//104-6946038-2861512?condition=all

not really. i have a few problems with the movie but it is minor. the movie raises lots of questions and it does a great job at countering the propaganda we are being submitted to 24/7, and i can't ask for more. as mmoore said, these are ficticious times and nothing is what it seems. all that we see on the "news" is scripted but you don't have a problem with it. for once we have a movie that shows the other side (how fake they are), and you guys cry bias/unfair/lie. you guys are lame. i don't go about attacking your person, now, do i?

well at least i am being consistent. it's not like i have ever claimed npr to be anything other than a center-right organization (liberal on social issues but conservative on the economy and foreign policy). which is more than what could be said about you, who goes on whining about the big bad "liberal" media and then innocently gloats about "liberal" reporters defending poor bush from big bad michael moore. give me a f*ing break. 110 million dollars pal, that's a lot of entry tickets. don't have a stroke on that account though. pathetic.

he does not gloss over it. he just does not even mention it (?) for 3 main reasons (imo) even though i have no doubt that mmoore is well aware of the role played by israel: 1) he'd loose 3/4 of his audience right off the bat for obvious reasons (it is a distorted debate in the usa, false charges of antisemitism, etc ...) and 2) because saudi arabia is more critical to retaining control of the wealth of the region. israel is our regional bulldog but they have nothing that we want, really; and 3) f9/11 discusses the bush admin response to 9/11 much more than it explains why arabs are pissed off. it is indeniable that the long-term relationship between the bushes and the house of saud, and the importance of saudi investment in the us (~7% of the wealth) played a crucial role in the response. it is likely that control of afghanistan and transfer of central asian oil played a critical role in *triggering* the 9/11 attack (even though it had been planned long before) oil has been *the* motive for foreign policy in the middle east for 70 years. what has changed? nothing, except that cheap oil is gone and competition for energy is now much much greater. give me one piece of evidence that anyone among that bunch wants democracy in developing nations (i mean beside rhetoric) dwindling resources and reference currency

a great new documentary about Faux News, the murdoch media empire and the role it plays as a mouthpiece for far right wing politics. it is hilarious and sobbering at once. the usual talking heads are caught red-handed in their usual lies, the manipulation techniques are clearly exposed, etc ... and it is available on dvd in rental stores.

which are? specifically? which clearly points to simon's hypocrisy. the dude would not blink an eye to have frist or cheney on the show, but he does not want mmoore? wtf? don't these people have any shame? what a farce!

and even though *you* are a friend of the bush administration, you'll make use of any criticism of mmoore to try shooting him down, right? scores of reporters bought the administration's crap about imminent danger as well. Clarke didn't refute anything, he said that *some* interviews were given while others said that the interviews were not sufficient considering the ties of the bin laden family to the 9/11 perps. *you* are either lying or you haven't seen the movie (and you are repeating other people's lies).

So you guys have downgraded the charges of "lies" to "half-truths and innuendos"? You must be getting desperate. This Simon dude is a complete moron. F9/11 does not do any of the things mentioned in the article above. In fact said piece says more about Simon's politics than about Moore. So much for the "liberal" media. The facts presented in f9/11: http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=18 http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=19 http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=17 http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=16

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/07/10/bush/index.html