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

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by kbeverina
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?

No, I have not seen the full 7 minutes....Do you have some reason to believe that he did anything differently than the 1 or 2 minutes that were shown ? We know he stayed there for that period of time, and I think it would be common knowledge if he were getting reports all that time. I mean, we've only seen that one clip of him being told we were under attack..oh...1000 times or so.

 

[shortbun]

LOL! This thread is like the engergizer bunny! I never have to
look for it-it's always right on top and going and going!
Has everything been said? I think so.

 

[jason]

Originally posted by kbeverina
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.

In case you missed it I did respond at the top of page 16

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by jason
Like I said before I thought Bush was talking about terrorist.

Not what I asked.

Did you think Bush was talking about al Qaeda after 9/11?

Before, when you seemed to think you had to make the point that Bush was talking about terrorists, you asked was al Qaeda not terrorists?

Now that you realize the point is which terrorists, in order to establish context, you're backing off and will only admit that you thought he was talking about terrorists in general and were not assuming al Qaeda?

Is it any wonder I feel like all the answers haven't been completely candid?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by 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).

Again..delegation is a neccessity, do you expect the president to handle all US affairs on a 24/7 basis


with your logic.... all our military leaders can be dismissed..the president can call all the shots from the whitehouse, rather than delegating military strategy to military leaders...

and perhaps during 9/11 he could have coordinated all federal assistance operations..

if you don't like the president just say so....but to expect him to do everything without delegating to staff and cabinet.is ludicrous, and shows a lack of knowledge of the function of government..

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
No, I have not seen the full 7 minutes....Do you have some reason to believe that he did anything differently than the 1 or 2 minutes that were shown ? We know he stayed there for that period of time, and I think it would be common knowledge if he were getting reports all that time. I mean, we've only seen that one clip of him being told we were under attack..oh...1000 times or so.

you think it would be common knowledge...????

 

[shortbun]

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!"

Ok-here's something new we can talk about. This is exactly what
we've been trying to say about GWB since day one. All these
people oooohing and aahing over him and many of us realize-
he's intellectually nekid.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88

Originally posted by 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).

Again..delegation is a neccessity, do you expect the president to handle all US affairs on a 24/7 basis


with your logic.... all our military leaders can be dismissed..the president can call all the shots from the whitehouse, rather than delegating military strategy to military leaders...

and perhaps during 9/11 he could have coordinated all federal assistance operations..

if you don't like the president just say so....but to expect him to do everything without delegating to staff and cabinet.is ludicrous, and shows a lack of knowledge of the function of government..

Why is this so friggin' hard to get through your head ? WE WERE UNDER ATTTACK !!! Sorry, but no, I do NOT expect the president to "delegate" all his responsibilities at a time like that. I expect the man to lead.

No, I do not expect the president to do everything in all situations. I DO expect him to do more than sit there with a stupid look on his face when terrorists have crashed two airliners into our most populist city. I think I've stated that now roughly 457 times, so maybe you should just refer back to one of them before bothering to respond again. I have no problems with how the government must operate. I have a major problem with a president that was completely clueless as to what was going on for 7 minutes during the worst attack on this country since WWII, and making no effort to rectify his ignorance.

My question is, why don't you have a problem with that ? Why would you rather information have to be relayed to him by messenger, and whispered in his ear, rather than having him get the information as it was obtained ?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
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.

The point is, when presented with evidence that's been manipulated, any conclusions are suspect.

Do you honestly want to base your opinions on facts that have been distorted or outright fabricated?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
you think it would be common knowledge...????

Oh, yeah...I forgot...The "vast liberal media conspiracy"...lol



Whatever...Don't you have a Rush Limbaugh program to transcribe or something ?

 

[jason]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Not what I asked.

Did you think Bush was talking about al Qaeda after 9/11?

Before, when you seemed to think you had to make the point that Bush was talking about terrorists, you asked was al Qaeda not terrorists?

Now that you realize the point is which terrorists, in order to establish context, you're backing off and will only admit that you thought he was talking about terrorists in general and were not assuming al Qaeda?

Is it any wonder I feel like all the answers haven't been completely candid?

First of all thanks for clearing up my own thoughts for me. For the third time now I thought Bush was talking about terrorist. As for which terrorist, whats the difference between a terrorist from Afganistan and a terrorist from another part of the world?

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by OceanAnnie
I don't think her point is moot either. It is spot on.

Ditto.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by wvrevy
No, I have not seen the full 7 minutes....Do you have some reason to believe that he did anything differently than the 1 or 2 minutes that were shown ? We know he stayed there for that period of time, and I think it would be common knowledge if he were getting reports all that time. I mean, we've only seen that one clip of him being told we were under attack..oh...1000 times or so.

Yes, I have reason to believe that the entire 7 minutes did not pass as shown by Moore.

I've seen several clips of the movie shown against clips of the full footage. I've seen congressmen relating what the film showed against what they said. I've seen narrative by Moore shown to be completely false. I've seen the soldier interviewed in the film who agrees with Moore's assertions complaining that the Iraq footage and reports on the soldiers there was distorted.

I have every reason to believe that Moore wanted you to think that Bush sat there like a bump on a log for 7 minutes looking scared and not knowing what to do so he took one or two minutes of that 7 and edited it together to give that impression. Unless any of us have seen the other 5 or 6 minutes, we can't say that that 1 or 2 was representative of the entire 7.

It's like the OP said--it would have been so effective to show the entire 7 minutes as they ticked off--what was another 5 or 6 added to the film? It's entirely reasonable to question the editing.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
IAs 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.

Exactly! The "vast majority" will conclude that Bush was talking about Al-Qaeda during his golf game. Or that the congressman walking away from the camera had something to hide. Or that the our governmnet flew ObL's relatives out of the country when no one else could fly. And they'd be wrong.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Why is this so friggin' hard to get through your head ? WE WERE UNDER ATTTACK !!! Sorry, but no, I do NOT expect the president to "delegate" all his responsibilities at a time like that. I expect the man to lead.

No, I do not expect the president to do everything in all situations. I DO expect him to do more than sit there with a stupid look on his face when terrorists have crashed two airliners into our most populist city. I think I've stated that now roughly 457 times, so maybe you should just refer back to one of them before bothering to respond again. I have no problems with how the government must operate. I have a major problem with a president that was completely clueless as to what was going on for 7 minutes during the worst attack on this country since WWII, and making no effort to rectify his ignorance.

My question is, why don't you have a problem with that ? Why would you rather information have to be relayed to him by messenger, and whispered in his ear, rather than having him get the information as it was obtained ?

WOW...calm down... is this the way you handle debate...getting upset if not everyone agrees with you...

was it known at that point in time that we were under attack...was he not given information... do you think Rudy handled everything on his own..without help from his staff..???

I don't have a problem with it because I have very good knowledge of the way government works..even in times of crisis, leaders must rely on the staff around them to do their jobs, no leader can do it all themselves...

what I saw that day was a leader who remained calm in the face of crisis..setting a good example for those open minded enough to see it..


if you think that a president or governor in time of federal or state disaster/crisis drops everything and only focuses on that event..then you are uninformed..

 

[Teejay32]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Why is this so friggin' hard to get through your head ? WE WERE UNDER ATTTACK !!! Sorry, but no, I do NOT expect the president to "delegate" all his responsibilities at a time like that. I expect the man to lead.

People who don't support GWB, and people who hesitate to vote for him, are still unwilling to criticize the guy for 7 minutes of relative inactivity in front of a group of kids even if Moore's depiction is 100% accurate. That's not so frigging hard to grasp either. The people trying to make a federal case out of this are the same people who'll proclaim on a daily basis that he's done absolutely nothing right. I'd give it up already.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Why is this so friggin' hard to get through your head ? WE WERE UNDER ATTTACK !!! Sorry, but no, I do NOT expect the president to "delegate" all his responsibilities at a time like that. I expect the man to lead.

Amazing 20/20 vision you have ... today. I am sure that between 8 and 9:30 a.m. Eastern time on 09/11/2001 you were also absolutely certain that we were under attack. It's great to always be right and certain in your knowledge of what is happening hundreds or thousands of miles away, especially when at the exact same moment no one else knew exactly what was going on.

No, I do not expect the president to do everything in all situations. I DO expect him to do more than sit there with a stupid look on his face when terrorists have crashed two airliners into our most populist city.

No one was absolutely certain until some time after the first plane crashed that this was indeed a terrorist attack. But you can believe and spin this to suit your perspective. Others believe differently. And of course there's that historical record to deal with.

I think I've stated that now roughly 457 times, so maybe you should just refer back to one of them before bothering to respond again. I have no problems with how the government must operate. I have a major problem with a president that was completely clueless as to what was going on for 7 minutes during the worst attack on this country since WWII, and making no effort to rectify his ignorance.

Wow -- 7 minutes of not knowing what was going on? That really does get your knickers in a knot, doesn't it? It must be nice to live life knowing everything about everything that's going on every second of the day. Too bad the rest of us can't share in this special gift of yours.

My question is, why don't you have a problem with that ? Why would you rather information have to be relayed to him by messenger, and whispered in his ear, rather than having him get the information as it was obtained ?

I don't have a problem because if you consider the timeline the events were just unfolding and information, such as it was, was being relayed through the appropriate channels. During this time the entire country -- well, except for you, of course -- was trying to figure out what was going on. Here in Chicago we had news reports (well, more like rumors) of plane crashes in Denver, hijackings in LA, etc. Everyone was trying to gather information, determine it's accuracy and get it out as quickly as possible.

It's really too bad that the President and his staff are all just humans. It would certainly be much better if they were all psychic and telepathic, right?

 

[Jimbo]

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!"

Well, that's just great. Now I've got a picture in my head of MM with no clothes. Thank you very much.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by shortbun
Ok-here's something new we can talk about. This is exactly what
we've been trying to say about GWB since day one. All these
people oooohing and aahing over him and many of us realize-
he's intellectually nekid.

Touche.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, yeah...I forgot...The "vast liberal media conspiracy"...lol



Whatever...Don't you have a Rush Limbaugh program to transcribe or something ?

you missed the point totally...

the entire country was in such a state of shock and confusion that day, who would have been documenting, evry time Bush was given info... so why would it be common knowledge that he was receiving info the entire 7 minutes...

if you read a timeline of events that day, there wasn't a whole lot of info to be relayed in that 7 minutes since there was so much confusion/ mis reporting and such..I recall theire were dozens of planes hijacked..and several shot down or crashed..all false info...

so yes...staff was trying to sort out the facts to be given to the CIC...