Farenheit: 9/11: a waste of my time

[Jim]

And Daddy Bush is sure making a tidy sum off his Saudi connections, as is his buddy James Baker. Influencing our decisions maybe? Oh no.

[ashw_justin]

I got a bootlegged copy of F9/11 on DVD

 

Sweet! Hey you haven't busted it into little pieces yet have you? I wanna watch it!

[willstrickland]

Moore loses all his credibility by not telling the truth. He is, of course, very careful not to actually lie, but he misrepresents, he hides the other side of each story, he insinuates.

 

Paul, this is the M.O. of every opinion page writer in the country...Safire, Krugman, Dowd, Thomas, Kristol, Teepen.

 

Yet liberals don't care that their reasons to hate Bush don't exist. And that amazes me.

 

I think you are confusing particulars with generals. I.e. the particulars are what you take issue with. I work with people who are solidly left. The reasons they list for opposing Bush tend to be the generals:

 

1. Systematic weaking of environmental protections. (This is what we do for a living, and I agree with them on this point. We see the policy changes etc in aggregate in a way

that you won't hear about or understand the significance of, if you don't work in this field).

 

2. Secretive, manipulative, and obstructionist tactics. Refusing to reveal the energy meetings participants.

Insisting the economy is singing along when every jobs report that comes out is weak and then revised downward the following month...this month the pre-report estimates were consensus 1/4million new jobs...report showed only 10% of that number, and they revised the previous two reports downward at the same time. Continuing to insist that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Knowingly using false, suspect, and weak information to gain public support to engage in a war of choice that had been a strategic goal of the memebers of the administration since the early/mid 1990s. You don't buy that one, go over to talkingpointsmemo and read the Uranium intel related material.

 

3. Irresponsible tax cuts and spending.

4. Irresponsible over-extension of the military. Two of my lefty coworkers have husbands in the military, one of whom will most likely be "stop-lossed" when he tries to retire next year after 20 years of service.

 

5. The attitude and competence factor. "Bring it on", "My Pet Goat".

 

 

So what is the alternative? A slimy lifetime politician who will do or say anything that will win some votes, and an ex trail lawyer who greatly contributed to our overly litigious society, frivolous lawsuits, and the skyrocketing medical malpractice premium. Young Mr. Edwards biggest campaign contributor is the Trial Lawyers.

 

The drunken Jesus freak dunce and The big oil puppermaster

 

VS

 

The flip flopping policy by polling brahmin and The eye candy scumbag lawyer.

 

We're fucked either way. At least for you Paul, the business cycle looks to be somewhat in your favor around graduation time. Those kids graduating in the last few years, I feel for them.

 

Enjoy your daily dose of propaganda....how's the view with your head in the sand?

 

You should know. Seriously, read both sides of each issue. There's a periodical out there called "The Week" which tends to give the stories in brief, and a couple of takes (i.e. spin) on the issue from both sides. For example, they might do a story snip and have a "what does it mean" section with two prominent columnists from the left and two from the right giving analysis. It's a decent summary piece you can get through over a cup of coffee. Other strategies to get both sides is to read the partisan and foreign press stuff. The Nation, National Review, New Repbulic, Weekly Standard, etc.

 

Get interested in going beyond the large media outlet headlines.

[cracked]

Wow, an intelligent post for once, thanks Will.

aul, this is the M.O. of every opinion page writer in the country...Safire, Krugman, Dowd, Thomas, Kristol, Teepen.

I know, but that was my initial reaction to the film. I see what you're saying with particulars vs generalities. But Moore was arguing with particulars, so many of which (I hesitate to say 'lies about') he is extremely disingenuous about.

 

I'm not as far right as I come off here, I read both sides' propaganda and do my best to sift through the bullshit and form an opinion that isn't spoon fed to me. I recognize each side's attributes and weaknesses, and I'm not afraid to say so. Unlike so many anti-Bushies. Keep posting your links, I appreciate them.

 

I'm not going to argue any more about F 9/11, since there's really no point. Suffice to say, I'm pissed about the film. Jim, RBW, you're saying what I knew you would say. I beg you: check the facts. The Coulter piece contains a lot of opinion, but it also includes facts about the issue at hand. The sources I've linked to are obviously biased, but they contain a lot of information that you can easily corroborate. Is this really so hard to do? I keep seeing people who accept everything fed to them by the left, and dismiss everything fed to them by the right, solely on the basis of political lean. That's stupid.

[cracked]

o what is the alternative? A slimy lifetime politician who will do or say anything that will win some votes, and an ex trail lawyer who greatly contributed to our overly litigious society, frivolous lawsuits, and the skyrocketing medical malpractice premium. Young Mr. Edwards biggest campaign contributor is the Trial Lawyers.

 

Who are you voting for? I'm not pleased with either one (is anyone?), but I'm not sure that Kerry/Edwards would do a better job than Bush.

 

(Jim, I'll post your reply for you, to save you some time: )

[cj001f]

Who are you voting for? I'm not pleased with either one (is anyone?), but I'm not sure that Kerry/Edwards would do a better job than Bush.

 

It all depends what you care about. Kerry/Edwards would definitely do a better job protecting the environment. Foreign Policy, etc is a tossup. There are distinct differences between the 2.

[cracked]

Very true.

[rbw1966]

Don't assume I haven't checked various sources out, Cracked (even the ones you posted). I'm not defending Moore's arguments as much as arguing that the sources you cite are doing exactly what you are criticizing Moore for doing. I didn't much care for F9/11 but I don't see Moore doing anything the right isn't doing as well.

 

p.s. Will's posts are almost always intelligent.

[j_b]

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 ....

 

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? ... ? ....?

 

, when, in reality, it was Richard Clarke's decision. Clark admits this here. And now Clarke is a Bush critic.

 

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?

 

Moore points out the distressingly close relationship between Saudi Arabia’s ambassador, Prince Bandar, and the Bush family. But Moore does not explain that Bandar has been a bipartisan Washington power broker for decades, and that Bill Clinton repeatedly relied on Bandar to advance Clinton’s own Middle East agenda. (Elsa Walsh, The Prince. How the Saudi Ambassador became Washington's indispensable operator, The New Yorker, Mar. 24, 2003.)

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?)

 

Moore's claim that Bush's cousin John Ellis fixed the election through his position at Fox News? Bullshit. (If you don't like the slant of bowlingfortruth, go to his sources. I know you won't like Ann Coulter, but it's hard to argue facts.)

 

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.

 

I could go on and on, but it's not worth it. Do some research if you really care, all the information is out there.

 

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.

[Greg_W]

I have nothing to add except to say that j_b is a fucking dick - I have said it here, and will insinuate it constantly in the future. How's that? Fuck yourself, j_b; may you contract a social disease from one of you butt-ramming liberal/socialist buddies.

 

Sincerely,

 

Greg_W

[cracked]

Moore is smart enough never to come out straight and say anything; hence, there is plenty of room for people like you to to wiggle around and point out that "Moore never said that!".

 

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.

Now this is interesting. Yes, it was too close to objectively call a tie. Yet plenty of news sources were calling it for Gore. Yet they don't recieve criticism? It's OK for call an extremely close election for one candidate, but not the other? If Fox had called it for Gore, would you be complaining about it? Nobody made the other news stations follow Fox's lead. Why blame the right?

 

I don't claim to be objective in the least. And your 'scrutiny' is laughable.

[j_b]

I have nothing to add except to say that j_b is a fucking dick -

 

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.

[Alan]

I have nothing to add except to say that j_b is a fucking dick - I have said it here, and will insinuate it constantly in the future. How's that? Fuck yourself, j_b; may you contract a social disease from one of you butt-ramming liberal/socialist buddies.

 

Sincerely,

 

Greg_W

 

 

Feel the love! Is this why our world is in such great shape?

[Billygoat]

Goddamn! Enuf of this shit!

 

History (or Herstory for that matter) and Reality are how you choose to perceive it

[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.

[markinore]

Who are you voting for? I'm not pleased with either one (is anyone?), but I'm not sure that Kerry/Edwards would do a better job than Bush.

 

I also am not thrilled about voting for Kerry. I am not sure that he will pull the troops out of Iraq or stand up to corporate greed or repeal the Patriot Act or stop the stupid military programs such as Star Wars.

 

But I am going to vote for Kerry, and this is why: If Bush is still president, it may not mean a hell of a lot to me or a lot of others on this site. I have a good job and health insurance for my family. My kids go to good schools and will never be forced to join the army to pay for college and risk being shot for doing so. A lot of people in this country aren't as fortunate, and if Kerry is elected, there is a reasonable chance they will have a better shot at getting health care coverage. Kerry probably won't escalate the war in the Middle East. He is probably less likely to start additional wars. He may put more money into education. There's a better chance that the minimum wage will be increased.

 

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but for the least fortunate Americans, that's the best they can hope for.

 

Nader? I like him, too. He's one of the few prominent individuals who says (accurately), that we don't need a third party in this country, we need a second party. The Democrats and Republicans are both controlled by the same corporate interests and will never turn on their masters. But what are Ralph's chances of winning? Zero. So voting for him if you live in a state that is close will only help Bush. If you live in a safe state and want to do that, go for it. Or if you live in a state that is in the bag for Bush, by all means vote Nader. But if you're in a state that matters, it's hard to defend a Nader vote.

[Dru]

Bush rushed into Iraq invasion: Clinton

Last Updated Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:14:01 EDT

TORONTO - Former U.S. president Bill Clinton said Thursday he would have taken the word of United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix over U.S. intelligence reports about evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

"It's not a question of believing [blix] over the intelligence agencies, but the intelligence was ambiguous on the point," Clinton said in an interview with CBC's The National.

 

Blix led the UN weapons inspections in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

 

 

His teams found little to support the pre-war assertions by the United States that Saddam Hussein's regime was actively developing and stockpiling chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

 

"I certainly would have believed it enough to put [the war] off and try to build more support," said Clinton, referring to building a consensus among the international community before invading Iraq.

 

"I mean, what was the hurry?" asked Clinton, who was in Toronto to sign copies of his best-selling memoir My Life.

 

Recently, a U.S. Senate committee report criticized pre-war intelligence reports claiming Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction for being wrong and overstated.

 

Clinton criticized the Bush administration for rushing into war with Iraq, saying the country posed a lesser threat to the U.S. compared with four other international hotspots.

 

He accused the Bush administration of putting too much focus on Iraq, saying it diverted resources from the top threat to the U.S.: al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden.

 

As an example, he spoke about the recent terror alert indicating a possible threat, based in part on four-year-old intelligence, to five financial institutions in the U.S.

 

"Who's the threat from? Iraq? Saddam Hussein? No, from bin Laden and al-Qaeda," he said, adding that the U.S. only learned of the threat from Pakistani intelligence.

 

"Why did we put our number 1 security threat in the hands of the Pakistanis with us playing a supporting role, and put all of our military resources in Iraq, which I think at best was our number 5 security threat?

 

"How did we get to the point where we got 130,000 troops in Iraq and 15,000 in Afghanistan?"

 

Clinton said the absence of a peace process in the Middle East, the conflict between India and Pakistan and their ties to the Taliban, and North Korea and its nuclear program all posed greater threats than Iraq.

[cracked]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/6/92357.shtml

[JoshK]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/6/92357.shtml

 

Funny, but last time I checked it wasn't Kerry's job on 9/11 to respond to a national disaster.

[Bronco]

Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it," Kerry told the Unity conference of minority journalists in response to a question about what he would done.

 

OR -

 

"I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting - we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think,

 

which is it?

[cracked]

Well, if Kerry couldn't think for 40 minutes when he DIDN'T have any responsibility to do something, I would be curious why anybody could believe that he WOULD be able to think if he DID have any responsibility. At least Bush was able to think after 7 minutes, which is quite a bit less than 40.

[JoshK]

Now I must say this is one of the stupidest arguments we've had on here. kerry's first quote is what he would have done IF HE WAS PRESIDENT. It's very different than being nothing more than a shocked bystander like the rest of us.

 

When I heard I was also shocked and at a lack of words for 40 minutes. That in no ways means if I had an immediate and urgent job to attend to I wouldn't have got up and been able to do it. Your argument is pretty weak here man.

[Greg_W]

Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to -- and I would have attended to it," Kerry told the Unity conference of minority journalists in response to a question about what he would done.

 

This is a nicely veiled non-answer. "I would have attended to it"??? That means nothing. What, specifically, would he have done? That early in a crisis, there's nothing to do but wait for information to start pouring in, and there are systems set up independent of the President to handle that. Give me a fucking break. It's the typical answer of wannabe, wasn't, neverhasbeen non-hero from nowhere with loads of cash who can't identify with the working stiff presidential candidate.

[Dru]

maybe he should have logged onto a discussion board immediately and posted a long winded rant about "killing every raghead out there" before anyone even knew who was responsible for the attack.

[j_b]

kerry never said he couldn't think for 40mn. he said he sat down with others and they discussed how they could not think (which is a figure of speech btw, i don't think they sat there without exchanging ideas for 40mn). then he said the pentagon impact occurred which some bushie figured was 40 mn later. this is characteristic of the disinformation sludge lovers are good at. and to actually see that this is argued by the guy who accuses moore of being unethical.