[quote]Superfly555 wrote:
Not to mention Guliani and his failure to accomidate security in NYC (Police/Fire radios not working in WTC, port security etc) after he took office in 93.
[/quote]
I am not a Republican, but let me tell you that Giuliani had many more problems in NYC than whether or not the radios were working; if you’d been on 42nd street anytime before 1993, you’d understand this.
He did a great job with cleaning up that city, and an excellent job on 9/11. If you were from here, you’d understand better.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JD430 wrote:
The DNC screaming to censor this movie should be sending red flags up all over the place. Why dont they officially merge with the American Communist Party and get it over with?
I dont think any of us are exactly sure what this movie shows, but lets be honest about a few things.
First, nobody took the Islamic terrorist threat serious until 9-11. Not Carter, not Reagan, not Bush I, not Clinton and not Bush II. That is just the fact of the matter. Im really not in love with any politicians at this point, but let’s deal with Clinton’s administration since that is the one really being examined here(at least from what I have read).
Albright is perhaps the biggest disgrace to American foreign policy in our history. 90% of the people I talk to on the street have a clearer vision of how America should defend its interests than she does. Ditto for Janet Reno. I dont need to rehash all of the particular incidents here, but from start to finish, their policy and subsequent decisions were a disaster.
As far as Sandy Burger, he should be in a federal prison, looking at parole around 2015 or so. Not even worth mentioning again.
With this cast of characters, is it any wonder Clinton made so many absurd decisions in terms of American security?
For once, I would like to hear a politician say that in retrospect, he screwed up. I would immediately have so much more respect for Clinton if he did that. To be fair, the other presidents should have done the same, but the two party system just does not allow for anyone to take blame.
Good post.[/quote]
Richard Clark appologized during the 9/11 hearings.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
To me, the fact is that no one should be making films about September 11th.
I don’t agree with the big Hollywood movie that came out this year, and I don’t like this one.
9-11 has influenced too many things, including the current war. To start making propaganda movies about it, either right or left, is not right.
The fault lies in Hollywood for, as always, giving into money over morals (and that’s a stretch for me to say).
I am dissapointed, to say the least.[/quote]
I feel the same. That is why I haven’t watched or bought the latest release with Nic Cage in it. For the record, Al Durr had the best post. There is a huge difference in the way this one is playing out compared to F9/11. I didn’t watch that one either, but they didn’t advertise that docu-drama as factual info that needs to be taught to school children in between math and science.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is a huge difference in the way this one is playing out compared to F9/11. I didn’t watch that one either, but they didn’t advertise that docu-drama as factual info that needs to be taught to school children in between math and science.[/quote]
F9/11 was always promoted as a documentary. It was never marketed as a “docu-drama”. It claimed to be an accurate representation of the facts.
You can’t honestly believe that The Path to 9/11 is being ADVERTISED as factual info that NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT TO SCHOOL CHILDREN in between math and science. Find that commercial or advertisement for me.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
There is a huge difference in the way this one is playing out compared to F9/11. I didn’t watch that one either, but they didn’t advertise that docu-drama as factual info that needs to be taught to school children in between math and science.
F9/11 was always promoted as a documentary. It was never marketed as a “docu-drama”. It claimed to be an accurate representation of the facts.
You can’t honestly believe that The Path to 9/11 is being ADVERTISED as factual info that NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT TO SCHOOL CHILDREN in between math and science. Find that commercial or advertisement for me.[/quote]
I find it funny that you showed no concern when Al said the following on the first page:
[quote]Additionaly, Scholastic was/is affiliated with this program and was working to include it into schools as a learning tool about 9/11. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of a docudrama being introduced to schools as a learning tool, regardless of who did it. Docudramas are nortorious for being much more drama (biased) than documentary (normally non-biased).
[/quote]
There was no commercial for it. We were discussing the intent.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Additionaly, Scholastic was/is affiliated with this program and was working to include it into schools as a learning tool about 9/11.[/quote]
[quote]hspder wrote:
Let me summarize the reasons why I care (all of which have been already mentioned, but I’d like to put it in a format that even the village idiot can understand), in no particular order:
An equally half-made-up docudrama about the life or Ronald and Nancy Reagan was in fact pushed to Premium Cable TV under the pressure of the GOP, hence at a bare minimum this docudrama should suffer the same fate
Playing with the facts – or, better yet, adding in non-facts – around such a traumatic event like 9/11 is of very bad taste, something that is usually reserved for fringe groups, not for a household name like Disney
Showing a Disney-sponsored docudrama in primetime network TV, advertised as the gospel according to the 9/11 commission, is dramatically different from showing an independent movie shot by a self-proclaimed raving leftist in some obscure cable channel nobody knows it even exists; comparing the two is like comparing the Superbowl to a San Jose Earthquakes soccer game.
Do y’all get it now, or do I need to explain it again with smaller words?
[/quote]
Please explain it all again, in smaller words.
We common folk love it when the new Lords of the Land come down and speak to us from on high. We promise to scrub our feet, take the cornsilk out of our hair, hold our hats in our hands and listen with baited breath.
I find it funny that you showed no concern when Al said the following on the first page:
Additionaly, Scholastic was/is affiliated with this program and was working to include it into schools as a learning tool about 9/11. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of a docudrama being introduced to schools as a learning tool, regardless of who did it. Docudramas are nortorious for being much more drama (biased) than documentary (normally non-biased).
There was no commercial for it. We were discussing the intent.[/quote]
I read what Al posted and didn’t address him because he wasn’t talking out of his ass.
Is English your first language? You specifically contrasted F9/11 with the ABC show by saying of F9/11, “…they didn’t advertise that docu-drama as factual info that needs to be taught to school children in between math and science.” ADVERTISING is exactly what you were talking about. Not intent.
[quote]doogie wrote:
F9/11 was always promoted as a documentary. It was never marketed as a “docu-drama”. It claimed to be an accurate representation of the facts.
[/quote]
I’m no fan of Michael Moore but for clarification, which part(s) of F9/11 turned out to be fabricated?
The sitting in the classroom doing nothing after being told America was under attack?
Bush Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001
Washington Post - April 11, 2004
CRAWFORD, Tex., April 10 – President Bush was in an expansive mood on Aug. 7, 2001, when he ran into reporters while playing golf at the Ridgewood Country Club in Waco, Tex.
The day before, the president had received an intelligence briefing – the contents of which were declassified by the White House Saturday night – warning “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.” But Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday.
TIA now verifies flight of Saudis
St. Petersburg Times
June 9, 2004
For nearly three years, White House, aviation and law enforcement officials have insisted the flight never took place and have denied published reports and widespread Internet speculation about its purpose.
New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11
NY Times
March 27, 2005
Now, newly released government records show previously undisclosed flights from Las Vegas and elsewhere and point to a more active role by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in aiding some of the Saudis in their departure.
The F.B.I. gave personal airport escorts to two prominent Saudi families who fled the United States, and several other Saudis were allowed to leave the country without first being interviewed, the documents show.
The defense industry’s incredible bonanza and the Bush family connection to the bin Ladens?
Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank
Wall Street Journal
September 27, 2001
If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family…
Through this investment and its ties to Saudi royalty, the bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party. In recent years, former President Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family’s headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund, while Mr. Baker is its senior counselor. Mr. Carlucci is the group’s chairman. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/bLandUSbanks.html
etc.
Imagine for a moment the reaction if Clinton had even the very remotest connection to the bin Laden family and then family and friends profited from 9/11 – or if Clinton held in his hands a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” one month before 9/11, and then continued merrily on with his vacation… can you say aneurism?
A memo BTW apparently not mentioned in “Path to 9/11”.
Let’s see if they keep with the phallic theme tonight where every time they’re about to show Clinton, they cut to something like the Washington Monument or a slow motion launch of a Sidewinder missile.
I find it funny that you showed no concern when Al said the following on the first page:
Additionaly, Scholastic was/is affiliated with this program and was working to include it into schools as a learning tool about 9/11. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like the idea of a docudrama being introduced to schools as a learning tool, regardless of who did it. Docudramas are nortorious for being much more drama (biased) than documentary (normally non-biased).
There was no commercial for it. We were discussing the intent.
I read what Al posted and didn’t address him because he wasn’t talking out of his ass.
Is English your first language? You specifically contrasted F9/11 with the ABC show by saying of F9/11, “…they didn’t advertise that docu-drama as factual info that needs to be taught to school children in between math and science.” ADVERTISING is exactly what you were talking about. Not intent.
[/quote]
Then let’s talk about advertising. You show me the advertisements for F9/11. Show me the commercial that stated it was a documentary like those on The Learning Channel and those that never elude to this being Moore’s view on the subject. I want to see if you can play your own game.
Beyond that, what are the blatantly false pieces of info that were shown in F9/11 that were advertised compared to all of the facts flowing from this television show? You are accusing people of talking out of their ass. Let’s see how much your ass is talking. Please explain exactly how F9/11 was advertised and how this is worse than this new docudrama’s advertisements.
From IMDB, it describes F9/11 as “Michael Moore’s view”. Micheal Moore’s own website describes F9/11 as [quote]"Michael Moore’s searing examination of the Bush administration’s actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11. With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts,[/quote]. Even Wikepedia defines it as [quote]Though classified as a documentary, the film steps away from the conventions of this genre and employs a heavy dose of satirical black humor and opinion in its presentation.[/quote] adding that [quote] Moore himself has called the film an “op-ed piece” [/quote]. So, while the word “documentary” may have been used, every description of it denies that it is a conventional documentary and admits it is MOORE’S view on the subject.
if the goal of ABC’s show was to present info as fact that could later be taught in classroom using that media, then yes, I am against it. Hopefully this has been spelled out for you now. I didn’t mean they were specifically advertising on commercials that this will be sent into classrooms.
Then let’s talk about advertising. You show me the advertisements for F9/11. Show me the commercial that stated it was a documentary like those on The Learning Channel and those that never elude to this being Moore’s view on the subject.
I want to see if you can play your own game.
[/quote]
This one specifically says it is “the true story.” There aren’t degrees of truth, so there is no need to say it is the truth like on the Learning Channel.
Because the movie is a couple of years old, it is difficult to find the commercials for it. However, it was pretty damn easy to find the TEACHERS’ GUIDE for it:
So it claims to be the true story AND it has a teachers’ guide to be used in classrooms. Dance around and make some more bullshit claims about the marketing of the movie.
[quote]
Beyond that, what are the blatantly false pieces of info that were shown in F9/11 that were advertised compared to all of the facts flowing from this television show? You are accusing people of talking out of their ass. Let’s see how much your ass is talking. Please explain exactly how F9/11 was advertised and how this is worse than this new docudrama’s advertisements.[/quote]
Hitchens says it best:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness.
It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery…
…In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore’s flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then?wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment.
But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don’t think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term “civilian casualty” had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003…
…Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome.
Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose “operation” murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time.
After that same invasion was repelled?Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more?the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally.
(Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist “security” headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country.
In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam’s regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge…
Reviewing the 2000 election during the opening of the film, Moore uses a quote from CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin to make a deeply misleading suggestion about the results of the media recounts conducted in Florida:
Moore: And even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes --
Toobin: If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.
Moore: -- it won't matter just as long as all your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way.
But the recount conducted by a consortium of media organizations found something quite different, as Newsday recently pointed out. If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead, the consortium found that Bush would have won the election under two different scenarios: counting only “undervotes,” or taking into account the reported intentions of some county electoral officials to include “overvotes” as well.
During the CNN appearance from which Moore draws the clip, reporter Candy Crowley explained that Toobin’s analysis assumed the statewide consideration of “overvotes,” which was not a sure thing, though there are indications that Leon County Circuit Court judge Terry Lewis, who was supervising the recount, might have directed counties to consider them.
The Saudi flights
In another scene, Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden’s family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air traffic was grounded after September 11. After an initial report in Newsweek inaccurately characterized the scene, saying it had made a direct claim to that effect, Moore’s staff replied with a legalistic parsing.
The film does accurately date the Saudi flights out of the country to “after September 13” as they claim (flights leaving the country resumed on the 14th), but Moore does not take the important step of explaining the meaning of this date in the film:
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Given that Moore states that “In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded,” how are viewers to know that this description did not include the Saudi flights out of the country? The “after September 13th” clause may show that Moore’s claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.
Saudi investments and business relationships
Moore also uses the power of insinuation to play on the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The facts are thin, but that doesn’t stop him from making ominous suggestions about the connections between the two.
After discussing the September 11 attacks, Moore presents clips from an interview between Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar and CNN’s Larry King in which Bandar describes Osama Bin Laden as a “simple and very quiet guy.” Moore then intones the following over video of Bush in a Florida classroom after being told of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center:
Hmm. A simple and quiet guy whose family who just happened to have a business relationship with the family of George W. Bush. Is that what he was thinking about? Because if the public knew this, it wouldn't look very good.
“Just happened” to have a business relationship? What does Moore mean? He doesn’t say precisely, of course, but he draws a series of tenuous and often circumstantial links between Bin Laden family investments and Bush’s actions as President.
For instance, Moore shows that the White House blacked out the name of another Texas Air National Guard pilot who was suspended along with Bush - James R. Bath - in service records released earlier this year. He suggests that the White House was not concerned about privacy and instead wanted to hide Bath’s links to Bush:
Why didn't Bush want the press and the public to see Bath's name on his military records? Perhaps he was worried that the American people would find out that at one time James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Ladens.
Moore notes that Bath was retained by Salem Bin Laden, and describes Bush’s founding of the Arbusto oil company. James Moore, an author, appears next, saying in an interview that “there’s no indication” Bush Sr. funded Arbusto and that the source of the firm’s investments is unknown. Michael Moore then piles on the innuendo in his narration:
So where did George W. Bush get his money?... [archival clip of Bush saying "I'm George Bush"] One person who did invest in him was James R. Bath. Bush's good friend James Bath was hired by the Bin Laden family to manage its money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush.
This phrasing suggests that Bath invested Bin Laden family money in Arbusto. But as Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball note in an online Newsweek column and Matt Labash points out in a Weekly Standard article on the film, Bath has stated this investment was his money, not the Bin Ladens’. Moore presents no evidence to the contrary.
The film also notes investments in United Defense, a military contractor, by the Carlyle Group, a firm that Bush and his father have been involved with which counts members of the Bin Laden family among its investors. He states:
September 11 guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just six weeks after 9/11, Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December, made a one-day profit of $237 million. But sadly, with so much attention focused on the Bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the Bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw.
Moore’s phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received.
Finally, Moore drops a big number - $1.4 billion - claiming “That’s how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends and their related businesses in the past three decades,” adding that “$1.4 billion doesn’t just buy a lot of flights out of the country. It buys a lot of love.” But Isikoff and Hosenball show that nearly 90% of that total comes from contracts awarded by the Saudi government to BDM, a defense contractor owned by Carlyle.
But when the contracts were awarded and BDM received the Saudi funds, Bush Sr. had no official involvement with the firm, though he made one paid speech and took an overseas trip on its behalf. He didn’t actually join Carlyle’s Asian advisory board until after the firm had sold BDM. And though George W. Bush had previously served on the board of another Carlyle company, he left it before BDM received the first Saudi contract. As usual, the connections are loose and circumstantial at best.
Afghanistan/Iraq/homeland security motives
Moore also offers a number of suggestions that the Bush administration’s military actions abroad and efforts to increase homeland security were motivated by nefarious hidden agendas.
For instance, here is his description of the US campaign against the Taliban government of Afghanistan:
The United States began bombing Afghanistan just four weeks after 9/11. Mr. Bush said he was doing so because the Taliban government of Afghanistan had been harboring Bin Laden... [montage of clips of Bush saying the US would "smoke out" Bin Laden] For all his tough talk, Bush really didn't do much.
Moore then shows former counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke criticizing the war, saying it took two months for US special forces to be deployed in the area of Afghanistan where Bin Laden was hiding. This fact is portrayed as an indication of a hidden motive:
Two months? A mass murderer who attacked the United States was given a two-month head start? Who in their right mind would do that?... [clip of Bush] Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else? Perhaps the answer was in Houston, Texas.
Moore proceeds with the heavy-handed narrative, suggesting he is unraveling the alleged hidden story of the US war in Afghanistan through a series of loose juxtapositions:
In 1997, while George W. Bush was governor of Texas, a delegation of Taliban leaders from Afghanistan flew to Houston to meet with Unocal executives to discuss the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan bringing natural gas from the Caspian Sea. And who got a Caspian Sea drilling contract the same day Unocal signed the pipeline deal? A company headed by a man named Dick Cheney: Halliburton.
[clips of Bush and Cheney talking about Halliburton from 2000]
And who else stood to benefit from the pipeline? Bush's #1 campaign contributor: Kenneth Lay and the good people of Enron. Only the British press covered this trip.
Contrary’s to Moore’s implication, the fact that Bush was governor of Texas at the time of the Taliban/Unocal meeting does nothing to prove that he was somehow involved in the meeting. Governors are obviously not responsible for every business dealing that takes place in their state. Nonetheless, Moore slips his name in to link him to the deal.
The filmmaker continues his narration by directly linking the 1997 deal with a 2001 visit to the US by a Taliban envoy:
Then, in 2001, just five and a half months before 9/11, the Bush administration welcomed a special Taliban envoy to tour the United States and help improve the image of the Taliban government.
[clip of envoy press conference]
Here is the Taliban official visiting our State Department to meet with US officials. Why on earth would the Bush administration allow a Taliban leader to visit the United States knowing that the Taliban were harboring the man who bombed the USS Cole and our African embassies? Well, I guess 9/11 put a stop to that.
This rhetorical question is entirely disingenuous. Moore suggests that the US was indifferent to the Taliban’s harboring of Bin Laden, but Isikoff and Hosenball point out that the administration met with the envoy in part to discuss the fate of Bin Laden, who they were pressing the Taliban to turn over.
Moore then implies that the war was really a front for Unocal to create a pipeline:
When the invasion of Afghanistan was complete, we installed its new president, Hamid Karzai. Who was Hamid Karzai? He was a former advisor to Unocal. Bush also appointed as our envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, who was also a former Unocal advisor. I guess you can probably see where this is leading. Faster than you can say black gold Texas tea, Afghanistan signed an agreement with her neighboring countries to build a pipeline through Afghanistan carrying natural gas from the Caspian Sea.
But as Ken Silverstein wrote in The American Prospect back in 2002 and Isikoff and Hosenball show in their article about “Fahrenheit,” Unocal dropped support for the pipeline in 1998 (the company has issued a press release making this point). In 2002, Afghanistan did sign the agreement Moore described, but Unocal is not involved in the project, which is still in its planning stages and may never come to fruition.
Later, Moore presents a series of anecdotal examples of what he sees as misguided efforts to improve homeland security: FBI questioning of a man who made derogatory statements about President Bush at a gym, infiltration of a peace group in Fresno by a sheriff’s detective on an anti-terrorism task force, a mother who was forced to drink her breast milk during an airport security screening to prove that it was not a toxic substance, and the decision to allow airline passengers to carry lighters and matches onto planes while banning other items. Again, based on this flimsy collection of evidence, Moore suggests a hidden motive:
Ok, let me see if I got this straight. Old guys in the gym - bad. Peace groups in Fresno - bad. Breast milk - really bad. But matches and lighters on a plane - hey, no problem. Was this really about our safety? Or was something else going on?
He then shows a series of clips arguing that Oregon state troopers are underfunded and have little manpower. Without making any argument about how this relates to the rest of the country or the federal government’s actions, Moore jumps right into more implications of conspiracy and nefarious motives, keying off a trooper’s wish for a manual on how to catch terrorists:
Of course, the Bush administration didn't hand out a manual on how to deal with the terrorist threat because the terrorist threat wasn't what this was all about. They just wanted us to be fearful enough so that we'd get behind what their real plan was.
Again, Moore’s meaning when he says “what this was all about” is unclear, but it appears to be a reference to the emphasis on homeland security after September 11. “Their real plan” is, as the movie later makes clear, a reference to the war in Iraq. But regardless of any previous plans to invade Iraq, the argument makes no sense. The breast milk example, for instance, indicates an overzealous devotion to homeland security, not indifference to it. And Oregon’s state budgetary woes are hardly proof that the federal government’s homeland security effort was insincere.
Ashcroft and the FBI
In his discussion of homeland security, Moore takes a cheap shot at John Ashcroft, stating, “In 2000, he was running for re-election as Senator from Missouri against a man who died the month before the election. The voters preferred the dead guy.” Of course, the governor of Missouri who succeeded Mel Carnahan, the so-called “dead guy,” had promised to appoint Jean Carnahan, the governor’s widow, to the Senate if her late husband won the election, a fact voters clearly understood.
On a more serious note, after suggesting that Ashcroft was unconcerned about terrorism before September 11, Moore uses phrasing that exaggerates how widespread knowledge of the Al Qaeda plot was before the attacks inside the FBI and Justice Department:
[Ashcroft's] own FBI knew that summer that there were Al Qaeda members in the US and that Bin Laden was sending his agents to flight schools around the country. But Ashcroft's Justice Department turned a blind eye and a deaf ear.
This implies far more prior knowledge about flight school activity than actually existed. As the 9/11 Commission found in a staff statement (72K Adobe PDF), the so-called “Phoenix memo” from an FBI agent in Arizona suggesting a possible effort by Bin Laden to send agents to flight schools was not widely circulated within the FBI and did not reach Ashcroft’s desk:
His memo was forwarded to one field office. Managers of the Osama Bin Laden unit and the Radical Fundamentalist unit at FBI headquarters were addressees, but did not even see the memo until after September 11. No managers at headquarters saw the memo before September 11. The New York field office took no action. It was not shared outside the FBI.
Before Sept. 11, the Minneapolis FBI also investigated Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was enrolled in a flight school there, but no Al Qaeda connections were discovered until after the attacks. Again, saying the FBI “knew” of a plot to send agents to flight schools is overstated.
“You can’t refute what’s said in the film”
During a recent interview on “Late Show with David Letterman,” the host identified the problems with the circumstantial argument of the film in a series of probing questions to Moore:
When you look at the film in total, are there things there - if I were smarter, could I refute some of these points? Shall I believe you that everything means exactly what it looks like? I mean, the presentation is overwhelming, but could a smarter man than me come in and say, "Yes, this happened, but it means nothing," "Yes, that happened but it means nothing"? But put together in a puzzle it creates one inarguable, compelling circumstance.
Moore’s response to Letterman (after a joking aside) sums up the problem with his work. Despite proclamations that the film is satirical and represents his opinion, Moore still makes strong claims about its veracity:
You can't refute what's said in the film. It's all there, the facts are all there, the footage is all there.
Sadly, as with most of Moore’s work, this is simply not true.
[quote]
if the goal of ABC’s show was to present info as fact that could later be taught in classroom using that media, then yes, I am against it. [/quote]
Again, reference the teachers’ guide for Moore’s shitfest.
[quote]
Hopefully this has been spelled out for you now. I didn’t mean they were specifically advertising on commercials that this will be sent into classrooms.[/quote]
You’re the one who doesn’t understand words actually have meaning. When you say it is being advertised to be used in classrooms, that means it is being advertised to be used in classrooms. Hooked on phonics might work for you.
And even post 9/11 republicans still don’t get terrorism–see Iraq, see terror prosecution (0),see domestic protection (the ports, the chemical facilities, etc.) It’s been dismal.
You are the one that does not get it. It is apparent in any of your posts.
In order to fight terrorism on our side of the pond you have to infringeon civil rights. You have stood against that.
In order to fight it at its source you have to use the military, the CIA and other tough tactics. You have stood against that.
In your own words you think it is a law enforcement issue. Let’s wait until they attack us and arrest them!
Did the British military prevent the recent attempted bombings? Or the subway bombings?
Who got better info from al-libbi? The fbi(traditional techniques) or CIA (alternative techniques including fake burials). Keeping mind al-libbi told the cia al-qaeda was wmd training in iraq (false).
And again, the techniques you’ve described have increase terror how many fold? If military commanders in Iraq are against such tactics why aren’t you?[/quote]
Did Clinton’s law enforcement policies stop multiple attacks throughout his presidency?
Did the British police prevent the London bombings on 7/7?
Did the Spanish police prevent the train bombings?
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Was Atta’s passport being red flagged a dramatization or is that somthing that actually happened?[/quote]
Yes but not with American Airlines.
American Airlines Latest to Hit ABC’s 9/11 Film – Legal Action to Follow?
The film in both its first part and second part appears to suggest that chief hijacker Atta was flagged as a security risk at Boston’s Logan Airport by American Airlines personnel. According to the 9/11 Commision Report that incident occured earlier that morning, in Maine, and the airline was US Airways. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003120633
This one specifically says it is “the true story.” There aren’t degrees of truth, so there is no need to say it is the truth like on the Learning Channel.[/quote]
I still want to know which specific parts were false in that movie. I am assuiming that comes later in your massive post.
[quote]
Because the movie is a couple of years old, it is difficult to find the commercials for it. However, it was pretty damn easy to find the TEACHERS’ GUIDE for it:
So it claims to be the true story AND it has a teachers’ guide to be used in classrooms. Dance around and make some more bullshit claims about the marketing of the movie.[/quote]
There is a very large difference between Scholastic working or planning to have a docudrama introduced into the classroom (which WAS what we were talking about), and Micheal Moore himself making a teacher’s guide. Which one do you think has more of a chance at actually becoming part of a nationwide or statewide curriculum?
[quote]
Hitchens says it best:[/quote]
No, he doesn’t. I asked for which parts were F A L S E, not someone’s opinion and scathing report of Moore as a person and a critique of his film making skills which is exactly what most of that article was.
In fact, the only time he seems to actually engage a fact that was supposedly mentioned in the movie was with:
[quote]Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. [/quote] which he then goes on to show Saddam supported many causes that led to many deaths that included Americans. I am asking for a list of facts that were mentioned in this movie that are blatantly false and this is the best we can do? My guess is, people who didn’t even watch the movie but hate Moore will believe second hand accounts of what was supposedly in the movie whether those accounts are confirmed or not.
Reviewing the 2000 election during the opening of the film, Moore uses a quote from CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin to make a deeply misleading suggestion about the results of the media recounts conducted in Florida:
Moore: And even if numerous independent investigations prove that Gore got the most votes --
Toobin: If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario, Gore won the election.
Moore: -- it won't matter just as long as all your daddy's friends on the Supreme Court vote the right way.
But the recount conducted by a consortium of media organizations found something quite different, as Newsday recently pointed out. If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead, the consortium found that Bush would have won the election under two different scenarios: counting only “undervotes,” or taking into account the reported intentions of some county electoral officials to include “overvotes” as well. [/quote]
I am confused now so someone with more poltiical background help me out. If votes were NOT counted, how would they know who would have won from uncounted votes? Newsday counted the votes anyway? Who finished counting them? Why did they finish counting them? What are some references for who uncounted votes voted for? I am truly interested in this.
[quote]
During the CNN appearance from which Moore draws the clip, reporter Candy Crowley explained that Toobin’s analysis assumed the statewide consideration of “overvotes,” which was not a sure thing, though there are indications that Leon County Circuit Court judge Terry Lewis, who was supervising the recount, might have directed counties to consider them.
The Saudi flights
In another scene, Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden’s family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air traffic was grounded after September 11. After an initial report in Newsweek inaccurately characterized the scene, saying it had made a direct claim to that effect, Moore’s staff replied with a legalistic parsing.
The film does accurately date the Saudi flights out of the country to “after September 13” as they claim (flights leaving the country resumed on the 14th), but Moore does not take the important step of explaining the meaning of this date in the film:
Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.
Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.
Given that Moore states that “In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded,” how are viewers to know that this description did not include the Saudi flights out of the country? The “after September 13th” clause may show that Moore’s claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.[/quote]
Uh, so he didn’t lie and was "technically accurate about the Bin Ladin family being allowed to fly after Sep 11 when planes were grounded. When do we get to the lies?
[quote]
Saudi investments and business relationships
Moore also uses the power of insinuation to play on the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The facts are thin, but that doesn’t stop him from making ominous suggestions about the connections between the two.
After discussing the September 11 attacks, Moore presents clips from an interview between Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar and CNN’s Larry King in which Bandar describes Osama Bin Laden as a “simple and very quiet guy.” Moore then intones the following over video of Bush in a Florida classroom after being told of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center:
Hmm. A simple and quiet guy whose family who just happened to have a business relationship with the family of George W. Bush. Is that what he was thinking about? Because if the public knew this, it wouldn't look very good.
“Just happened” to have a business relationship? What does Moore mean? He doesn’t say precisely, of course, but he draws a series of tenuous and often circumstantial links between Bin Laden family investments and Bush’s actions as President.[/quote]
You know, I am wasting my time reading all of this and we haven’t gotten to the LIES yet.
I’ll continue reading the rest later. I can only assume you are saving what I actually asked for as the final “surprise”.