Fahreinheit 9/11....again

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
I love how people Monday morning quarterback this event. It's always fun to play the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" game because hindsight is always 20/20. The reality is that none of us have walked in Pres. Bush's shoes during a similar event, so none of us knows exactly how we'd react if we were in his position. And we probably (thankfully) never will.

What I find odd is that people are fairly forgiving to one another for having differing reactions to what went on the morning of 9/11/2001. So why do some continue to bash Pres. Bush for his reaction? Is he supposed to be something more than human?

No not superhuman, just involved, taking action, something. It appeared to me he was befuddled and waiting to be TOLD what to do. That's what bothered me.

 

[shortbun]

Also, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE WON THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL BEST PICTURE award! It is a documentary and Tarentino (sp?) is profitting off of it! Moore has his talents, no doubt, but this time....he's gone over the line. Sure, Bush has his many character flaws, but c'mon...it doesn't have to come to this.

the above is from Fooboy's OP


Just how is Quentin Tarantino profiting from Fahrenheit 9/11?
I know Miramax also distributes his films but this is a new slant
for me. Can you elaborate?

 

[Fooboy]

Originally posted by shortbun
Just how is Quentin Tarantino profiting from Fahrenheit 9/11?
I know Miramax also distributes his films but this is a new slant
for me. Can you elaborate?

Hello shortbun,
As you know, Miramax distributes Tarantino's films, therefore they are investing in him. Although Disney blocked Mirimax from distributing, the Weinstein bros (co-chairmen of Mirimax, if i am correct) set up the Fellowship Adventure Group and tagged along for the distribution of Moore's film. Anyways, the whole thing is a bit complicated but the point is this: Since Tarantino is the Lead Judge at Cannes, his choice in Moore's film will boost his own investors and in the future, win investments for his future movies. (btw, I have a credible source for this info) Filmmakers struggle for investors when needed a start, as most individuals and businesses do. Does that make any sense? I'm just a rambling college student so I'll try to explain my point of view a little better when I've had a full nights sleep . The Cannes situation this year has been VERY commercial, and VERY political -> Cannes is in France...France and in fact just about all of Europe is not exactly #1 GO GO Bush fans, hence, they LOVE the movie. So that is why I think that he should not have gotten the award.

And an added note: I am proud to live in this country where we have the Freedom of Speech! I don't believe in ANY other country were a documentary of such extreme mockery can be publicly distributed without the writer/director's head being placed on a stick...maybe in the UK. But I must admit, Freedom of Speech is a great thing...even if the speech is not. But we all have the right to our own opinions and the right to know facts.

Hope this helps...or has it just caused more static?

foobs

 

[Planogirl]

Fooboy, there's plenty of other countries that have freedom of speech. I'm sure that Fahrenheit 911 will be shown in them too.

It's interesting that you perceive a conflict of interest in the Cannes award though. I was not aware of that.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Originally posted by snoopy
I am far from a Bush fan, and I didn't see the movie, but I'll be darned if I can figure out why he was criticized for continuing reading the story to the children. I think he handled it admirably, given the shock he must have been in - kudos to him for not upsetting the children and getting everyone in a panic. I haven't really like what Bush has done after 9/11, but I like the way he handled himself on that horrible day.

I agree!! I thought he did a fine job that terrible day and I'm far from being a conservative or a Bush fan.

 

[Fooboy]

Originally posted by Planogirl
Fooboy, there's plenty of other countries that have freedom of speech. I'm sure that Fahrenheit 911 will be shown in them too.

It's interesting that you perceive a conflict of interest in the Cannes award though. I was not aware of that.

Hi Planogirl!
I am not stating that the film will not be shown in other countries. It has already been shown in many. I meant to say, in another democratic nation, such as Taiwan, if a director were to make a documentary mocking the Taiwanese President to Moore's degree...there would be more than just written criticism. Does that make sense? I used Taiwan because of the recent elections and the shows and networks that mocked the current president (who i feel IS a you know what) were all shut down because of the extent of their public display of opinions. Basically, when it comes to Freedom of Speech, the States REALLY has COMPLETE utilization of it.

foobs

 

[Fooboy]

Originally posted by palmtreegirl
I agree!! I thought he did a fine job that terrible day and I'm far from being a conservative or a Bush fan.

I'm with you guys and gals on this one too. The administration, the FAA, and Super Mayor Guilliani did their jobs with precision and audicity. The government of the nation and of NYC did their duties, and I am in admiration to them. I too, am neither a Bush fan nor a right-wing flyer.

Foobs

 

[lightningcoach]

As I recall the aide told Mr. Bush that a plane had hit the Twin Towers. They did not say "a terrorist flew the plane into the Twin Towers" because they did not know what was going on at that moment. The second time the aide said we have a serious problem.

Moore is so far out of line in his movie that he will actually end up hurting his liberal agenda. The more you villianize a politician the more it polarizes their party to fight for them.

And if you're Clinton and then you can make millions on a book deal.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
But the perception of his reaction could have been better, and I am sure the president himself wishes it were so.

The perception was just fine until Michael Moore put the footage in his film and added his commentary. When has the reaction been criticized until then?

As to why he is criticized for sitting there...well...perhaps some feel that once it was known that America was under attack, someone ( not Bush himself ) someone should have stopped and wondered if the president was in any danger. And if he was then get him out of a school full of children.

How long have "some" felt this way?

And were you there? Do you know what was going on? Do you know what the choices were? How can you possible say he made a bad choice when you don't even know what the choices were? Perhaps he was told that another classroom was being secured for phone calls. And he decided, since reporters were there with cameras, that it was important to project strength and calm to the nation?

Who are we to say that is not a valuable and important responsibility of the president when we are under crisis? Unless we know what his actual choices were from 9:05 to 9:12, we can't possibly judge if he made the right one or not. There's no way for us to know that he could have been doing something more worthwhile than what he did.

I'd like to hear your suggestions on what specifically you believe would have been a more valuable thing for the president to be doing from 9:05 to 9:12.

 

[AirForceRocks]

The administration, the FAA, and Super Mayor Guilliani did their jobs with precision and audicity.

The only part where I would disagree with you here is the FAA. While they certainly did an admirable job once the decision to ground all commercial air traffic was made, I think that they weren't up to snuff on keeping NORAD apprised of the various hijackings. And yes, I realize that the transponders on the hijacked aircraft being turned off made it more difficult, and I know that hindsight is 20/20, but I'm of the opinon that the FAA did not do a good job of crisis management as the situation unfolded.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
What about taking charge of the situation

What specifically do you think he should have been doing between 9:05am when he was informed of the second plane and 9:12am, when he left the classroom for the secure classroom with secure communications? Specifically.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by Van Helsing
Good for him !!!!


So who was making all the decisions ??????

FAA Command Center in Virginia: "Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?"

FAA HQ: "Uh, God, I don't know."

Command Center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make probably in the next 10 minutes."

FAA HQ: "Ya know, everybody just left the room."

I heard the audio. I felt for them. They're talking about the possibility of shooting down a commercial aircraft with innocent people aboard. Their reaction is only human.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I heard the audio. I felt for them. They're talking about the possibility of shooting down a commercial aircraft with innocent people aboard. Their reaction is only human.

Yes, and what jj/VH doesn't seem to grasp is that the people on the tape are trying to decide, within the FAA, whether or not they should ask NORAD to scramble jets.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
No not superhuman, just involved, taking action, something. It appeared to me he was befuddled and waiting to be TOLD what to do. That's what bothered me.

Do you recall approximately how many minutes of the 7 were shown?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yes, and what jj/VH doesn't seem to grasp is that the people on the tape are trying to decide, within the FAA, whether or not they should ask NORAD to scramble jets.

I can't even imagine being in that position. Add to that, it was a totally different world then.

I remember a thread on the DB shortly after speculating that a plane had actually been shot down--the thought of that was much more horrific than the thought of the passengers bringing it down.

P.S.--don't get me started on the FAA--I don't know why more isn't made of their failings pre-9/11 as well.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by snoopy
I am far from a Bush fan, and I didn't see the movie, but I'll be darned if I can figure out why he was criticized for continuing reading the story to the children. I think he handled it admirably, given the shock he must have been in - kudos to him for not upsetting the children and getting everyone in a panic. I haven't really like what Bush has done after 9/11, but I like the way he handled himself on that horrible day.

I am in total agreement with Snoopy and the others. I also am not a Bush fan...I did not vote for him....but I thought he did a great job that day.


And Snoopy...your kids are really growing up! They are so cute.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
What you seem to be missing, most likely intentionally, is that the conversation you're referencing has to do with the FAA making the decision as to whether or not to request NORAD to scramble aircraft in pursuit of Flight 77. The "somebody" that has to make a decision in the next 10 minutes would be an FAA official.

jj also seems to not realize that NORAD had little to no authority to deal with attacks coming from WITHIN US air space by commercial airlines. The terrorists well knew this, I'm sure.

I love how people think every agency was supposed to have a plan for dealing hijacked airlines crashing into buildings.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by dmadman43
jj also seems to not realize that NORAD had little to no authority to deal with attacks coming from WITHIN US air space by commercial airlines. The terrorists well knew this, I'm sure.

Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

 

[LauraR]

I haven't seen "F 9/11" but it sounds like alot of it is a bunch of left wing hooey. I put this movie in the same class as Oliver Stone's "JFK" which intimated that LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination. But I do see Bush's reading to the kids after news of the planes hitting the WTC as bad leadership. Events get cut short all the time for the President. The kids would have been fine if he handed the book off to a teacher and left, and the nation couldn't see him, so I don't see that he was projecting calm to anybody. I do think he should have been taking charge and finding out exactly what was going on. Clearly we didn't have an existing structure in place to deal with this unprecedented situation, but he might have been called upon to decide whether to shoot down the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Once the passengers on that plane knew what was going on, they took action themselves and probably saved Washington D.C. from another catastrophe. But if they hadn't acted, he might have had to.
I don't know the timeline, so those 7 minutes probably didn't make a difference, but to be honest, it bothers me that President Bush sat there, not knowing what decisions needed to be made.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Thankfully, that is no longer the case.

true, that!