Political: Bushisms (Including a brand new one)

[jennyanydots]

I turned on my car radio after the first plane had hit, and was listening when the second plane hit.

my first thought was "I hope it's an accident, I hope it isn't terrorism, didn't a plane hit the Empire State building many years ago? It has to be an accident..." In other words, the idea that it was terrorism came to mind immediately, but was too incredulous for me to accept that it was terrorism until the second plane hit.

but what I can tell you is...for those few minutes, between the first and second planes, all I was capable of doing was listening to that radio, seeking details about what happened. if anyone had asked me what else happened during that drive to work I would not have been able to answer.

 

[year2late]

Yes Kebeverina, since the WTC had been a prior terrorist target, please tell me that you think that terrorism was a distinct possibility? At least our President should have.

 

[knightpass]

Originally posted by kbeverina
I think you're getting some bad info somewhere.
.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!

He went to the site known as Democratic Underground to get people to provide him with info to hit you with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178338

Apparently he couldn't handle you alone.

 

[Viking]

Originally posted by Nancy
I'm another one who didn't immediately think terrorists when the first and even when the second plane hit. My first thought was an air traffic controller flipped and gave them a flight path during landing that took them into the towers. After watching the newsclips a few more minutes it dawned on me that couldn't have happened and that's when terrorists entered my mine. It probably took me at least 5 minutes to get to that point and I was watching it happen.

You obviously don't know anything about aviation: No ATC controller would make an error like that, and even if ATC were taken by terrorists, no pilot would follow a clearance like that. On 9/11 there was perfect sight. That's why those guys sit up front in the planes and check what the controllers tell them.
Even a thing like in Die Hard 2, where those lunatics steer airliners into the ground by manipulating the ILS , wouldn't work - Except in Hollywood, of course

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by knightpass
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!

He went to the site known as Democratic Underground to get people to provide him with info to hit you with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178338

Apparently he couldn't handle you alone.

Well, whattayanno, you hit the daily double in your first post. My congratulations.

First off, I don't read the Democratic underground.

Second, "he" is a "she".

Here's hoping you have more luck with your SECOND post.

 

[Nancy]

Originally posted by Viking
You obviously don't know anything about aviation: No ATC controller would make an error like that, and even if ATC were taken by terrorists, no pilot would follow a clearance like that. On 9/11 there was perfect sight. That's why those guys sit up front in the planes and check what the controllers tell them.
Even a thing like in Die Hard 2, where those lunatics steer airliners into the ground by manipulating the ILS , wouldn't work - Except in Hollywood, of course

Nope don't know anything about aviation...I said that was my first thought then I realized that could never happen. I'm not a pilot or an airplane expert. Just stating that I didn't immediately think terrorists...I thought accidents....until it dawned on my at least 5 minutes later that something like this couldn't be an accident. This was in response to some posts stating that we all knew immediately that it was an attack...sorry i must be stupid, but I didn't think that immediately.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by year2late
Yes Kebeverina, since the WTC had been a prior terrorist target, please tell me that you think that terrorism was a distinct possibility? At least our President should have.

Well, year2late, I didn't know about it until after the second plane hit, so I honestly can't say if I would have thought it was terrorism. When my husband told me that 2 planes had hit the WTC, it took a moment to register. It was the fact that it was two that made me think it was on purpose.

And what I think is that John Kerry, who is in our government and was on the Senate Intelligence Committe and therefore dealt with these types of things, apparently didn't think it was terrorism either--he said he thought it might be suicide or something. But no one has a problem with that, no one thinks he should have known immediately it was terrorism and no one thinks it's horrible that he sat there until the Pentagon was hit and he was forced to evacuate unable to think.

So what I think is that this is completely politically biased and completely ridiculous and people who wouldn't accept this level of deceit from friends and family, are completely willing to give Michael Moore a pass because they want to hear it. I'm honestly stunned that people on this board, that I've known for years, and known to be thoughtful, unwilling to jump to conclusions, willing to wait and hear the full story, generally holding people to high standards of personal character--these same people think it's okay for Michael Moore to do the things that he does in this movie.

These same people want to rationalize what this movie does by saying, "It doesn't tell an actual lie." That in itself is untrue, but even if it was, it's just rationalizing to say that it's okay because it's not an actual lie. People who don't put up with that kind of deceit from other posters in debate board arguments, think it's perfectly okay to do this in this movie. Seriously, since when is "it's not an actual lie" an excuse for intentional deceit?

Moore cuts and splices to make it appear that Bush met with the Taliban about a pipeline deal in Afghanistan, he leads people to believe this pipeline was built and implies that we went to war for this pipeline, a pipeline that benefitted Enron and was consulted on by the current president of Afghanistan.

In reality, the Clinton administration gave permission to the Taliban to visit Unocal, the Clinton administration supported the pipeline deal, Bush never met with them, Enron had nothing to do with it, the current Afghan president was never a consultant, the deal went bust in 1998, was never an issue during the Bush administration, which did not "welcome" the Taliban, and the pipeline was never built.

This is okay with people? It's okay that the movie makes people believe otherwise?

The movie makes people think that our soldiers are desecrating a dead Iraqi, when in reality it was a drunk guy, not dead--it's okay to do that to our soldiers? It's okay to make people think that those soldiers in that film would do something like that?

It's okay to make Congressman Michael Castle look like someone who wouldn't sacrifice his children--when he doesn't even have any children? It's okay to do that to Michael Castle? You approve of that?

It's okay to say that Porter Goss lied? Why is it okay for the movie to say that he lied? That's not okay to do that to someone else. I can't believe people would think this is okay.

It's okay to put footage of injured soldiers in there without their permission? It's okay to show footage of funerals without their permission? Shouldn't the family have a say if their son/husband's funeral is shown in this movie? Is that okay to do to that family?

I've seen posters concerned about Saudi connections, concerned about the whole Carlyle Group connection, though they can't even explain what they're concerned about exactly. The movie makes people think they should be concerned. The fact is, 90% of Saudi money given to contractor BDM to train their military, was given during Clinton's administration, and the Carlyle Group sold BDM before GHW Bush joined the Asian Advisory Board. The Carlyle Group did not profit from the war and Clinton and Carter administrations have prominent figures employed by the Carlyle Group as well. There's nothing nefarious going on. But it's okay that Michael Moore makes people think there's something sinister? Nobody sees anything wrong with that?

I could go on and on, of course, about nearly every scene in this movie. And I'm truly, truly shocked at the number of people on this board who have no problem with this type of deceit, people who would normally think it's not okay to smear other people with falsehoods and innuendos, no matter what the political party. That's what people don't get about objections to this movie. It's not about objecting to criticizing the adminstration. It's about objecting to deliberate deceit and the manner in which he goes about it. It's just unethical and it's just not right what he does in this movie.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
That was an excellent post Thanswer. You might have also suggested reading the 9/11 commission report and see what they had to say about the time frame.

It tells the whole tale and it wasn't just the seven minutes in the classroom - it was the time prior to entering the classroom when he knew one plane had hit, it was the time after he left when he spent valuable time putting together a statement to deliver (though he hadn't yet contacted anyone and had no idea what was going on).

"The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes..."


That anyone would jump to the conclusion that Moore lied about this when even the white house has done nothing but defend it, never deny it, is simply silly.

Uh, did you see the links ThAnswer provided? They dispute what he/she/you are saying.

I don't know how you can say "he hadn't contacted anyone and had no idea what was going on" when every link points to the contrary. The teachers who were there said he teleconferenced with Cheney and Guiliani and others, and held a briefing with the congressmen present that day. The principal in the classroom said there was more going on in that classroom than the movie showed. There's a picture of him talking on the phone in the holding room at 9:25am--is that a fake photo? Made in the same studio as the fake man on the moon photos perhaps?

ThAnswer's link said that Ari Fleischer held up a sign telling the president not to say anything yet. The video shows that the president didn't sit there for 7 minutes. The video shows that the press were asked to clear the room, clearly they weren't ready for the president to leave the room yet. If we know there was a lot going on in the room, per the principal who was there, we know Ari Fleischer was conveying instructions to the president, we know the room was cleared, not the president taken out of the room--all that points to the secret service calling the shots about the president's movements. That's something he doesn't have control over.

And we all know that it doesn't matter what he did that day--people would find something to be critical about.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by knightpass
DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!

He went to the site known as Democratic Underground to get people to provide him with info to hit you with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178338

Apparently he couldn't handle you alone.

OMG--I am cracking up!

I'm a rabid Bush supporter?

I love how people just assume that someone is a rabid Bush supporter because they call a lie a lie when they see one.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

kbeverina, I'm just curious--have you seen the movie? You seem ready to assume all who have seen it are focusing on the parts deemed questionable by those who oppose the movie; when, in my experience, a large part of the people seeing it are barely discussing those aspects. Instead, they often seem to be brought up by folks opposed to the movie, who have not seen the movie, in an attempt to completely debunk the movie in its entirity, and an attempt to discourage those who aren't on either side of the fence from seeing it.

Do you know what was most powerful to me? There were 5 scenes, in particular. And these are the 5 I hear brought up again and again and again. #1, the bomb exploding and killing and injuring our soldiers. It was sickening, it was shocking, but it was something we, as Americans, NEED to see so that we know exactly what the young men and women we're sending to war are facing. #2, the dead baby after a bomb explosion. Again, I feel we, as a nation, need to realize that we aren't just killing the "bad guys", innocent people die in wars, too. #3, the interviews with the maimed/dismembered soldiers at the VA. Again--we have to understand what is happening to our soldiers. Please understand, I'm NOT saying that war is never necessary--before someone accuses me of that--I'm saying that when we go to war, we need to understand EXACTLY what we, the soldiers, and the innocent of the country the war is in, are in for. This movie is the only place I got to see that.

#4 & #5 are words that the President spoke--and he did, saw him right there saying it--that disgusted me that the President of my own nation could be so indifferent to the needs and concerns of his people. The first, when asked about the war on terror, he responds with some general comment about all nations needing to fight terror, and then says, "Now watch this drive!" with an enormous grin on his face. I, personally, found that offensive. Granted, there are those who can (and likely will) say that he was playing golf, cut him a break, he was asked that out-of-turn, but you know what? It is well within his power to avoid the press on a golf course. No one sprung that on him. It appeared as though he knew he had to make a talking point, he did it, now lets get back to what's truly important--my golf game!

The last one is in regards to a speech he was giving, apparently to a group of wealthy people (unfortunately, I can't recall where it was given) where he says "some call you the elite. I call you my base." Again, it just sickened me to hear those words out of the mouth of this country's president; we're supposed to believe that he's working hard for the unemployed, the uninsured, the underpriveleged, when he, himself, says he considers the rich, the elite, his "base"?

I realize I've gotten way off topic here on a topic that is already off-topic (), but it bothers me when people who haven't even seen the movie attempt to deconstruct it and claim it has no value, when everyone I know who has seen it passes over those particular points with a grain of salt and instead are shocked and moved by those things that are unmistakable facts.

 

[kbeverina]

Posted on Democratic Underground:

That is why I want to make sure I shoot her down properly before this idea can take root.

Listen, whichever poster you are, wish_i_could_vote, (I'm going to guess faithinkarma since you're Canadian and presumably can't vote?) you completely made up what I said:

Her arguments are so ridiculous. Why indeed would he get up and then sit back down again?

Ya - bush gets up and makes phone calls

Wouldn't the children be frightened by the president leaving the classroom to pee so much?

I never said he was getting up making phone calls during that time! Did you just make that up or did you misunderstand what I said?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
That was an excellent post Thanswer. You might have also suggested reading the 9/11 commission report and see what they had to say about the time frame.

It tells the whole tale and it wasn't just the seven minutes in the classroom - it was the time prior to entering the classroom when he knew one plane had hit, it was the time after he left when he spent valuable time putting together a statement to deliver (though he hadn't yet contacted anyone and had no idea what was going on).

"The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes..."

This is interesting. Posted by skygazer on Democratic Underground:

Tell her to read the 9/11 commission report

Edited on Sun Aug-08-04 01:24 PM by skygazer
It tells the whole tale and it wasn't just the seven minutes in the classroom - it was the time prior to entering the classroom when he knew one plane had hit, it was the time after he left when he spent valuable time putting together a statement to deliver (though he hadn't yet contacted anyone and had no idea what was going on).

"The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes..."

And I'm the one who should "turn the TV off once in a while and to stop watching FAUX and to get a personality and opinion of their own."?

 

[knightpass]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
Well, whattayanno, you hit the daily double in your first post. My congratulations.

First off, I don't read the Democratic underground.

188 posts and you don't read there?

Second, "he" is a "she".

Sorry, he...I mean she, I mean he....I didn't realize that "ThAnswr" is feminine.

Here's hoping you have more luck with your SECOND post.

I promise I won't be nearly as condescending as you.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Posted on Democratic Underground:



Listen, whichever poster you are, wish_i_could_vote, (I'm going to guess faithinkarma since you're Canadian and presumably can't vote?) you completely made up what I said:





I never said he was getting up making phone calls during that time! Did you just make that up or did you misunderstand what I said?

I'm not the person you're addressing, but I will say that in reading your original post on the topic, it does sound as though you are saying he was making phone calls during the time frame in questions; I can see how someone could interpret that as "he made phone calls during the visit to the classroom".

And, in the interest of truth I just want to point out to anyone reading that those sections quote above were not all said by wish_I_could_vote, but rather from posters responding to his post. So to attribute them all to wicv is inaccurate.

And lastly, I find it kind of creepy that people are essentially stalking and attempting to "out" another poster. What's the point?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
kbeverina, I'm just curious--have you seen the movie? You seem ready to assume all who have seen it are focusing on the parts deemed questionable by those who oppose the movie; when, in my experience, a large part of the people seeing it are barely discussing those aspects. Instead, they often seem to be brought up by folks opposed to the movie, who have not seen the movie, in an attempt to completely debunk the movie in its entirity, and an attempt to discourage those who aren't on either side of the fence from seeing it.

I haven't seen the movie. The points I have mentioned were discussed on these boards by other posters in other threads. I'm not assuming anything. These were things that people said they were concerned about after watching the movie. I don't have to have seen the movie to know these things aren't true.

Do you know what was most powerful to me? There were 5 scenes, in particular. And these are the 5 I hear brought up again and again and again. #1, the bomb exploding and killing and injuring our soldiers. It was sickening, it was shocking, but it was something we, as Americans, NEED to see so that we know exactly what the young men and women we're sending to war are facing. #2, the dead baby after a bomb explosion. Again, I feel we, as a nation, need to realize that we aren't just killing the "bad guys", innocent people die in wars, too.

Very valid points.

#3, the interviews with the maimed/dismembered soldiers at the VA. Again--we have to understand what is happening to our soldiers. Please understand, I'm NOT saying that war is never necessary--before someone accuses me of that--I'm saying that when we go to war, we need to understand EXACTLY what we, the soldiers, and the innocent of the country the war is in, are in for. This movie is the only place I got to see that.

The problem I have with these interviews is that Michael Moore used the footage without getting permission from the families. He took the footage from interviews given to NBC. The people who gave the interviews should have a say if these interviews are in Michael Moore's movie, don't you think? Shouldn't Michael Moore ask these families before he puts footage of their loved ones' funerals in his movie? My problem is not with showing their pain--it's with blindsiding them by putting it in his movie without asking them so he can prove his political point. If he truly cared about them, as he purports to, I think he would do that. He's just using them.

#4 & #5 are words that the President spoke--and he did, saw him right there saying it--that disgusted me that the President of my own nation could be so indifferent to the needs and concerns of his people. The first, when asked about the war on terror, he responds with some general comment about all nations needing to fight terror, and then says, "Now watch this drive!" with an enormous grin on his face. I, personally, found that offensive. Granted, there are those who can (and likely will) say that he was playing golf, cut him a break, he was asked that out-of-turn, but you know what? It is well within his power to avoid the press on a golf course. No one sprung that on him. It appeared as though he knew he had to make a talking point, he did it, now lets get back to what's truly important--my golf game!

But it was completely misleading. Intentionally misleading. I saw the entire cut of that footage. Bush was not asked about the war on terror. He was talking about the previous day's Palestinian attack on Israel. He's not talking about the attacks on us. There was stuff cut out of the middle--it's not that he made his statement and then said, "Now watch this drive!".

The last one is in regards to a speech he was giving, apparently to a group of wealthy people (unfortunately, I can't recall where it was given) where he says "some call you the elite. I call you my base." Again, it just sickened me to hear those words out of the mouth of this country's president; we're supposed to believe that he's working hard for the unemployed, the uninsured, the underpriveleged, when he, himself, says he considers the rich, the elite, his "base"?

First, he wasn't even president. This was October 2000 and he and Al Gore were speaking at a fundraiser. They were in essence roasting themselves, making fun of the criticisms that had been lobbed at them during the campaign. Gore made fun of what was being said about him and his proposals for social security.

I asked on another thread, but never got an answer--nobody is offended that Gore would make fun of the social security issue, when so many senior Americans are affected by this?

I realize I've gotten way off topic here on a topic that is already off-topic (), but it bothers me when people who haven't even seen the movie attempt to deconstruct it and claim it has no value, when everyone I know who has seen it passes over those particular points with a grain of salt and instead are shocked and moved by those things that are unmistakable facts.

I think it's a strawman argument to ask if someone has seen the movie. Here's an analogy:

If someone says that they saw "The Passion of Christ" and the movie gives the impression that the Jews killed Jesus, someone who hasn't seen the movie could not effectively argue yes or no to that.

If someone says that they saw "The Passion of Christ" and learned from the movie that the Jews killed Jesus--that's something you argue against, whether you saw the movie or not. That's a fact that someone walked away with that is incorrect. That's not an opinion of what the movie is trying to say.

It's the second I'm arguing against, not the first.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by knightpass
188 posts and you don't read there?



Sorry, he...I mean she, I mean he....I didn't realize that "ThAnswr" is feminine.



I promise I won't be nearly as condescending as you.

I wonder if this is the kind of stuff that everyone is mad about on here today?

We like The Answr, KBev, and FIK. It shouldn't matter to you what gender they are. Or whatever it is that made you afraid to address them with your real DIS name.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
I'm not the person you're addressing, but I will say that in reading your original post on the topic, it does sound as though you are saying he was making phone calls during the time frame in questions; I can see how someone could interpret that as "he made phone calls during the visit to the classroom".

Then I'm glad to get the opportunity to clear that up. I never once said Bush got up and made phone calls while the kids were reading.

And, in the interest of truth I just want to point out to anyone reading that those sections quote above were not all said by wish_I_could_vote, but rather from posters responding to his post. So to attribute them all to wicv is inaccurate.

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't intend to attribute them all to wish_i_could_vote, I was still operating under the general heading of "Posted on Democratic Underground:". There are quotes by various posters there.

And lastly, I find it kind of creepy that people are essentially stalking and attempting to "out" another poster. What's the point?

I don't think anyone is "outing" anyone--you have to be hiding to be outed.

 

[knightpass]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2

Do you know what was most powerful to me? There were 5 scenes, in particular. And these are the 5 I hear brought up again and again and again. #1, the bomb exploding and killing and injuring our soldiers. It was sickening, it was shocking, but it was something we, as Americans, NEED to see so that we know exactly what the young men and women we're sending to war are facing. #2, the dead baby after a bomb explosion. Again, I feel we, as a nation, need to realize that we aren't just killing the "bad guys", innocent people die in wars, too. #3, the interviews with the maimed/dismembered soldiers at the VA. Again--we have to understand what is happening to our soldiers. Please understand, I'm NOT saying that war is never necessary--before someone accuses me of that--I'm saying that when we go to war, we need to understand EXACTLY what we, the soldiers, and the innocent of the country the war is in, are in for. This movie is the only place I got to see that.

If I may interject a little (and for the record, I didn't see the movie), I agree that you are not likely to see that kind of footage so easilly in the media. That said, I don't have to see it to KNOW that our soldiers get killed or wounded and innocents get killed in the crossfire. I think it is highly condescending of Moore to assume just because I haven't seen that kind of footage, that I don't know that's what goes on in a war.

#4 & #5 are words that the President spoke--and he did, saw him right there saying it--that disgusted me that the President of my own nation could be so indifferent to the needs and concerns of his people. The first, when asked about the war on terror, he responds with some general comment about all nations needing to fight terror, and then says, "Now watch this drive!" with an enormous grin on his face. I, personally, found that offensive. Granted, there are those who can (and likely will) say that he was playing golf, cut him a break, he was asked that out-of-turn, but you know what? It is well within his power to avoid the press on a golf course. No one sprung that on him. It appeared as though he knew he had to make a talking point, he did it, now lets get back to what's truly important--my golf game!

Again, let me point out that I didn't see the movie, but I have seen the criticisms of how that scene was edited.

Michael Moore's "documentary" Fahrenheit 9/11 feature a mocking clip of President Bush on a golf course. Bush declares, "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorists killers," and then Moore jumps to Bush adding, as he prepares to swing at a golf ball, "now watch this drive." Tuesday night on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Brian Wilson noted how "the viewer is left with the misleading impression Mr. Bush is talking about al-Qaeda terrorists." But Wilson disclosed that "a check of the raw tape reveals the President is talking about an attack against Israel, carried out by a Palestinian suicide bomber."

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040701.asp

The last one is in regards to a speech he was giving, apparently to a group of wealthy people (unfortunately, I can't recall where it was given) where he says "some call you the elite. I call you my base." Again, it just sickened me to hear those words out of the mouth of this country's president; we're supposed to believe that he's working hard for the unemployed, the uninsured, the underpriveleged, when he, himself, says he considers the rich, the elite, his "base"?!

He shows a clip of George W. Bush speaking at New York’s Alfred E. Smith Dinner in 2000 where he jokes to the white-tie audience, “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” What Moore does not tell you is that then-Vice President Al Gore was a co-guest of honor with Bush at that dinner, and that it’s traditional for politicians to poke fun at themselves at the annual bipartisan charity event sponsored by the Archdiocese of New York. Moore simply presents it as if Bush is buttering up the big-money crowd.

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0001807.cfm

I realize I've gotten way off topic here on a topic that is already off-topic (), but it bothers me when people who haven't even seen the movie attempt to deconstruct it and claim it has no value, when everyone I know who has seen it passes over those particular points with a grain of salt and instead are shocked and moved by those things that are unmistakable facts.

See, you saw it, and fell for the lies, thinking it has "value". I didnt see it, but going by those who did see it and are deconstructing it, thanks to them, I dont have to see it. I''m sure people are moved...but people are also moved by good movies, lousy movies, documentaries, one way or the other.

 

[knightpass]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I wonder if this is the kind of stuff that everyone is mad about on here today?

We like The Answr, KBev, and FIK. It shouldn't matter to you what gender they are. Or whatever it is that made you afraid to address them with your real DIS name.

My real DIS name????

***scratching head***

What do you mean?

Is my "real name" supposed to be Mickey Mouse or something? I don't understand.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Originally posted by kbeverina

If someone says that they saw "The Passion of Christ" and learned from the movie that the Jews killed Jesus--that's something you argue against, whether you saw the movie or not. That's a fact that someone walked away with that is incorrect. That's not an opinion of what the movie is trying to say.

It's the second I'm arguing against, not the first.

I think it is a matter of perspective; to me, a more accurate analogy would have been someone walked about from the movie and said, "I saw the movie, and Jesus is dead." Well, yes, Jesus died, but is Jesus dead? One could make arguements on both sides of that fence--neither would be 100% accurate, but both would have some valid points.