A comment about moore's bad editing in F 9/11

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And w made no effort to find out what was going on [at least in those seven minutes].

Okay, since you saw the film, perhaps you can clarify.

The OP says that the film doesn't show the entire 7 minutes, just a minute or two.

Have you seen the entire 7 minutes? Do you know for a fact that what Moore wanted you to think was going on, i.e., Bush sat there like a bump on a log and did nothing, was actually what happened? Do you know for a fact that he didn't edit out things "going on" between 9:05am and 9:12am?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Originally posted by Jimbo
I don't see kbeverina's point as moot.

The movie is called "Fahrenheit 9/11." A viewer can come to the reasonable conclusion that Bush was talking about Al-Qaeda in the clip. But he wasn't; Moore simply led you to believe it by editing out the context.

How about the sectrion when Moore is asking congressmen if they have family members in Iraq. I know that at least one of the congressman replied that he did indeed have family serving there. But the portion Moore shows is just the guy walking away from the camera, not his answer.

That's the whole problem many of us have with this guy. He is not producing documentaries if does this sort of thing.

I don't think her point is moot either. It is spot on.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by Dancind
Something that really interests me about this idea. The aides were behind the blue screen, getting the information, trying to make some decisions as to what to do next. This went on for the infamous seven minutes, while the President waited to hear the results of all the consultation, without being involved! Makes me wonder how many other decisions are made in the White House with the President being the last to know. his staff was getting the info... anyone who thinks that the president or any state or federal politician can do everything themselves rather than delegating to their staff...is simply clueless to the way Government works...

this is how things work..that's why intelligent staff are hired,

I haven't read all of this thread, so maybe someone has mentioned this. Clinton talks about the Bin Laden hunt in his book. According to him, his focus was on apprehending or assassinating Bin Laden. Unfortunately, not successful.

since you wish to talk about Clinton...investigations into 9/11 have uncovered the following info...

the plan to hijack and use airliners as weapons, was devised years ago by an Al Quaida member...Osama rejected the plan....

after Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles into several of bin laden's trainign camps..Osama contacted the Al Quaida member..met with him...and gave the go ahead for the 9/11 attack..

 

[betz]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'd still like someone to succinctly explain what could have been done in those supposedly lost 7 minutes the would have changed what happened that day.

Ummm ... did you read my post?

Originally posted by betz
7 minutes? What happened the next 7 minutes? Or the next 70 for that matter. Not a whole lot, just a lot of aimless flying around incommunicado except for using someone's cell phone.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
since you wish to talk about Clinton...investigations into 9/11 have uncovered the following info...

the plan to hijack and use airliners as weapons, was devised years ago by an Al Quaida member...Osama rejected the plan....

after Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles into several of bin laden's trainign camps..Osama contacted the Al Quaida member..met with him...and gave the go ahead for the 9/11 attack..

Ah, so Clinton is at fault for causing 9/11? Whew! Glad that's cleared up. Somone had mentioned Al Gora was at fault several pages ago so I thought it was him. Of course, we all know w is really at fault, right? Then again, Tom Delay probably had something to do with it too. And even Al Sharpton!

 

[jason]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Right. So you did think when you saw that clip that Bush was talking about al Qaeda after 9/11?

Like I said before I thought Bush was talking about terrorist.

Originally posted by kbeverina
Yes, terrorist is a terrorist.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Odd. He finds out the U.S. has been attacked and yet he wouldn't want to position himself so that he could have information instantly as it comes in. Odd... Yes, very odd.

he was in position to get info as it was available..did Andrew Ca rd not walk into the classroom and whisper an update into the president's ear......

several staff people on several phones can gather much more info than one president on one phone....

what is odd is that some people would rather nitpick, than look at the facts as to how government and also big business operate....


Disney with Michael Eisner is possibly the only place you'll find the top person trying to do it all..and it's not working very well is it..

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
A few points amid the cavalcade of excuses for the most inept president in history:

1 - Again, I never said that he could necessarily have done anything to prevent either the second WTC attack or the attack on the pentagon. However, I expect my leader to, oh, I dunno...lead maybe ? Not delegate...LEAD. I can not imagine a situation where I would rather he NOT be informed, immediately, of everything that was going on. Instead, he was completely out of touch for those 7 minutes. Maybe it doesn't really make any difference in the scheme of things for that particular day. But I think it indicates quite a bit about him as a leader, and none of it flattering.

Any great leader knows that delegating is the best way to get a job done.....

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ah, so Clinton is at fault for causing 9/11? Whew! Glad that's cleared up. Somone had mentioned Al Gora was at fault several pages ago so I thought it was him. Of course, we all know w is really at fault, right? Then again, Tom Delay probably had something to do with it too. And even Al Sharpton!

I never said Clinton was at fault, but if that's what you deduct from my statement..that's your choice..

 

[Rutt and Tuke]

As I posted last night, I have seen the movie.

I would not call it a true documentary, but I don't know the last time I saw a true impartial documentary. This was definitely more slanted than others, but that is what one will expect from Michael Moore. It was edited as you would expect a film to be. Most things are edited for time or whatever, well except the OP's posts. LOL

In the edited 7 minutes during the film, I saw a man who looked like he didn't want to be there, but wasn't sure what to do. Or as I later posted, a man who possibly was told to wait there while more facts were determined.

As to the terrorist golf clip. The only conclusion I made from that clip was that he is not a talented extemporaneous speaker and he sounded "dumb." I honestly (and I don't care if anyone says I'm being dishonest here) did not make any assumption about what terrorists he was talking about.

There will be those who swallow everything portrayed in the film without giving it thought to how it might have truly happened, but the majority of people I know have more of an analytical mind than that.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
he was in position to get info as it was available..did Andrew Ca rd not walk into the classroom and whisper an update into the president's ear......

several staff people on several phones can gather much more info than one president on one phone....

what is odd is that some people would rather nitpick, than look at the facts as to how government and also big business operate....


Disney with Michael Eisner is possibly the only place you'll find the top person trying to do it all..and it's not working very well is it..

I'll stand by my opinion that I found his actions a little odd. I'm not suggesting that anything different would have come if he had left the room, but I still find them odd.

I think what's really interesting is the fact that you consider other peoples opinion of his actions as "nitpicking" and your own opinion, somehow, as "right." Now that's interesting!

And the whole Eisner thing is another story, errr, debate. He's far from being the sole and only reason for where the WDC finds itself today.

 

[AirForceRocks]

I don't dispute that, but from what I read had the preidents orders been properly relayed, the fighters would have been enroute sooner and possibly could have stopped the pentagon from being hit..

The fighters from Langley, the closest ones (at 100 miles away at impact) had taken off before the shoot down order was even given.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I don't think I was answering for him, was I? I was simply pointing out that he already answered your question and you seemed to have missed it. Or was it that it was, according to you, untrue?

I asked "jason" for clarification and you quoted and responded. It doesn't matter if you think I shouldn't be careful in clarifying what [apparently] someone else has said. I'll wait for "jason" to respond, thanks.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Rutt and Tuke
As to the terrorist golf clip. The only conclusion I made from that clip was that he is not a talented extemporaneous speaker and he sounded "dumb." I honestly (and I don't care if anyone says I'm being dishonest here) did not make any assumption about what terrorists he was talking about.

There will be those who swallow everything portrayed in the film without giving it thought to how it might have truly happened, but the majority of people I know have more of an analytical mind than that.

I agree totally.

The golf clip was simply highlighting another "bushism" that have been far too common during the past three years. Just as many other areas of the film did the same (my favorite was his description of his dog "lookin fer bugs,") it was intended to show another side of w.

As far as swallowing everything in the film, I too think that the vast majority of individuals who have seen the film will analytically come to their own conclusions.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
If the film achieves nothing else, it's wonderful to see how much discomfort, anger, and angst that it continues to cause not only the republican party but w's supporters as well.

Okay, now I see it so differently. I see it as a bunch of people oohing and aahing over Moore's finery and I'm standing here saying, "But the emperor's got no clothes!"

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Okay, now I see it so differently. I see it as a bunch of people oohing and aahing over Moore's finery and I'm standing here saying, "But the emperor's got no clothes!"

Case in point.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Instead, he was completely out of touch for those 7 minutes.

The OP said only a minute or two of those 7 minutes was shown. Is that not the case? Have you seen the entire 7 minutes or only the minute or two that Moore wanted you to see?

 

[wvrevy]

1 - Delegation works wonders...in situations that call for it. But when leadership is needed (say, oh, I dunno, a crisis situation), there is no substitute (though I can see how someone that thinks Bush is a good leader might miss that).

2 - To kbeverina...I can't find the post you referred to earlier...Can you just ask the question on this thread ?

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by Nancy

If my small child was in that class and he reacted by jumping up out of his chair and announcing what happened those kids would have been scared.


If you small child was sitting in the room and the President reacted and said "let's pray, we were just attacked and are at war" How ould you have felt? My DD would have been crying and hysterical....she would have wanted me.

I haven't read all of this thread, so this may have already been addressed but this is just ridiculous. Nobody said that Bush should have jumped up and run around like a headless chicken, barging his way past kids and teachers and shouting, "god help us, we're all gonna die!". As soon as his aid had told him that America was under attack, he should have calmly said something like, "Thank you for welcoming me to your school but I'm afraid I have to leave a little earlier than planned. Being President is a very busy job and sometimes things happen that you weren't expecting, so I have to leave now but I promise to come back and hear you all read as soon as I can." That would've taken about 10 seconds.

Not difficult really, is it?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I'll stand by my opinion that I found his actions a little odd. I'm not suggesting that anything different would have come if he had left the room, but I still find them odd.

I think what's really interesting is the fact that you consider other peoples opinion of his actions as "nitpicking" and your own opinion, somehow, as "right." Now that's interesting!

And the whole Eisner thing is another story, errr, debate. He's far from being the sole and only reason for where the WDC finds itself today.

I didn't say my opinion was right nor yours wrong...however knowing how government functions...and having once worked with the Secret Service with the VP's motorcade,,,I wouldn't doubt that he was told to just go ahead with the visit, while more info was gathered..since there's no way they would just whisk him away without first securing a route, and knowing exactly where they were taking him..

as I recall all the initial reports I heard that morning were sketchy at best as to the type of aircraft..many stating it was a small private plane...this would certainly be no cause for alarm.....