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

[AirForceRocks]

from what I read had they received the orders they could have prevented the pentagon from being hit...

I believe that the closest fighters to the Pentagon at the time it was hit were still 100 miles away. I know that it was quite a few minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that the first fighters appeared over the city. My children's school is about 5 minutes from the Pentagon (at that time of day, low traffic), and it wasn't until I was out of my car going into their school that I heard the first fighter jets.

 

[Dancind]

Originally posted by ToriLammy
No they are complimenting the President for having the confidence in the people he appointed to do the job, the job he appointed them to do.

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.

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.

 

[ThreeCircles]

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

As inconspicuous and well hidden as it may be, Jason already answered your question.

But, wait... Is he being dishonest too?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Yooo hoooo, Kbeverina...

Was w not talking about terrorists?

Of course, I've never said he wasn't talking about terrorists.

You're the one who keeps repeating that over and over as if I did because you want to avoid the issue of context.

The clip was deliberately removed from its context and inserted in the film in such a way as to convey a completely different context. It was done to illicit the exact reaction you had. Kudos to Michael Moore.

The issue is the context of the comments, not the content of the comments.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Of course, I've never said he wasn't talking about terrorists.

You're the one who keeps repeating that over and over as if I did because you want to avoid the issue of context.

The clip was deliberately removed from its context and inserted in the film in such a way as to convey a completely different context. It was done to illicit the exact reaction you had. Kudos to Michael Moore.

The issue is the context of the comments, not the content of the comments.

The comment stands on its own. W was talking about terrorists. You're arguing a moot point with yourself.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by betz
Portraying Calm during what? What was the emergency that he was portraying a calm George W to the nation for? Why was he portraying calm if nothing happened yet?

I thought we were talking about the time period between 9:05am when he was told about the second plane and 9:12am when he left?

I don't think that's a whole lot of time to bring the meeting with the kids to end and get out of there.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by betz

As I stated before:

But, I feel he would have showed more strength by calming dismissing himself and attending to more important matters, than reading Millions of Cats, or whatever it was. Even if the more important matters were thought to be "Just an Accident".

Oh, gimme a break. We are all going on what we now know. No one saw what was going on in the classroom at that time. Everyone was focused on figuring out what the hell was happening in NYC. Days later we see this clip of Bush in the classroom, and knowing was we then knew we make these judgements on how he SHOULD HAVE reacted. That's just crazy. See how easy 20/20 hindsight is?

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. If you are going to criticize, then give solutions or alternative. I've heard "Well, well! uh uh, he coulda saved the Pentagon!!" Right!!! Puh-leeze. Please go back and review the timeline of events and what people knew and when and give me some logical scenario on how that could have possibly happened.

Filmmaking is a great tool. You can make things seem like whatever you want thme to. Why just last week I saw a NYC get swallowed up by a tidal wave in some documentary about Global Warming.

 

[ThreeCircles]

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.

I think this is the main concern behind the seven minutes. Regardless of what was going on behind the scenes, I would have wanted to be involved.

I find it odd that after hearing of an attack on U.S. soil w would be more interested in finishing up his book rather than learn more about the attack. Call me crazy but a little prioritizing may be in order!

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
I think you're being dishonest in your answer Kbeverina.

You seem to be attempting to point out that w was not talking about terrorists in that clip and yet you agree that he was indeed talking about terrorists in that clip.

The fact of the matter remains, w was talking about terrorists.

Please show me where I give the impression that I'm saying the clip is not talking about terrorists.

Maybe then I can clear up some of your confusion and we can move on to you answering the question.

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I keep asking because no one will answer.

Tell me about it. I'm glad to see that someone admitted that the film is about the war in Iraq, even though this whole thread and probably half the movie concerns the events of 9/11. It's only misleading, moronic, and criminal if the two subjects are mentioned in the same GWB speech I guess.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Oh, gimme a break. We are all going on what we now know. No one saw what was going on in the classroom at that time.

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

 

[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.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
I believe that the closest fighters to the Pentagon at the time it was hit were still 100 miles away. I know that it was quite a few minutes after Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that the first fighters appeared over the city. My children's school is about 5 minutes from the Pentagon (at that time of day, low traffic), and it wasn't until I was out of my car going into their school that I heard the first fighter jets.

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..

there was also mention that some fighters were sent chasing ghost planes....

again certainly not the presidents fault for sitting ina classroom..

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
As inconspicuous and well hidden as it may be, Jason already answered your question.

But, wait... Is he being dishonest too?

Why don't you let jason respond to the post directed to him?

I don't want to misinterpret what he said and am attempting to clarify before I comment. It's a matter of courtesy.

 

[MICKEY88]

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

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...

 

[ThreeCircles]

Just a comment (off topic as it may be)...

I think it's a testament of Moors ability to produce public discourse that this movie continues to do so well and that this thread runs on, and on, and on, and on...

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.

OK, back to run-on diatribe from Kbeverina!

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Why don't you let jason respond to the post directed to him?

I don't want to misinterpret what he said and am attempting to clarify before I comment. It's a matter of courtesy.

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?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
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...

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.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Just a comment (off topic as it may be)...

I think it's a testament of Moors ability to produce public discourse that this movie continues to do so well and that this thread runs on, and on, and on, and on...

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.

OK, back to run-on diatribe from Kbeverina!

Thats exactly what I like about the film. I can't say I agree with it 100%, but I like the idea that it brings up some controversial issues that a lot of people may not want to talk about.

 

[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.

2 - It's no wonder you always lose arguments, Steve...Maybe you should try actually reading the posts instead of just repeating yourself over (and over...and over...and.......)

3 - kbev...I didn't see your response on the other thread...I'll look for it right after this post.