Farenheit 9/11

[Sejah Haversh]

Okay, so, shoudl we actually expect Michael Moore to tell us the truth, or will this "documentary" be at least 50% fiction and distortion like the fictional work that was "Bowling for Columbine"?

Personally, I think Moore is once again trying to make himself rich by pissing people off. Well, once again, he ain't getting my buck.

[Figrin D'an]

I really don't care if he's trying to anger people, or trying to get rich, or both. He's free to say whatever he wants to in his films. His movies are not, however, documentaries, and it's time that Hollywood, critics and movie-going public stop treating them as such. The fact that "Bowling for Columbine" won the Best Documentary Oscar a couple of years ago really makes me ill.

As a side note, Ray Bradbury is suing Moore over the title, stating that Moore used the reference to his book, Fahrenheit 451, without permission.

[Sejah Haversh]

Go Bradbury! He better win, he's got WAY more class.

And, as a side note, did you know that Farenheit 451 was typed up in the basement of UCLA's library on a pocketful of dimes fed into a coin-operated typewriter because Ray couldn't afford one of his own? That's some comittment to your work, there.

[Charley]

I don't support Moore's work, ergo I won't be in theaters to see it :)

I'm sure it will be the same sensationalist slant piece that all of his films have been.

Y'know, Al Franken does the whole "fat annoying liberal douche" thing better, and with better credibility.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I didn't see "Bowling for Columbine", I'm not really interested in seeing this. I go to the movies to be entertained, not to be flat-out bombarded with someone elses political views.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

I saw the trailer. It's the same sensationalist tripe that BFC was. Possibly worse. If I ever met Moore, I'd punch him in the face. His tactics are beyond reprehensible.

[CMJ]

He's a talented filmmaker that much is certain. I do wanna see F9/11 - but I'm sure I'll wait for the home video release. I don't think I've ever paid to go see a documentary in the theatres. Not even anything by Errol Morris, who is quite possibly the most gifted director of documentaries the last 25 years.

Going in you know F9/11 is not going to be evenhanded(though at the end of the day alot of documentaries do have a POV - his is just way more obvious than most). However, Moore makes very entertaining films(Roger and Me being his absolute best) so I'll be interested to see if this one lives up to the rest of his canon.

Moore's stated goal of tiliting the election with this film is the pinnacle of hubis I'd have to say.

[JMK]

I just read the past review threads concerning BFC, some pretty contrasting reviews & opinions! Worth looking up. :)

[Katina Van-Derveld]

If he was just expressing an extreme opinion, I could at least just write him off as a nutjob. But Moore flat-out lies, cutting his film together to form his version of the truth. I believe there's already a senator seeking legal action against Moore for slander in this film.

Go watch the trailer. The part where he's trying to coax congressmen into signing their kids up for the war is disgusting. Of course no one wants their kid to go and fight a war. It's not like they're dodging a draft.

[Sanis Prent]

There's also the issue that he is whipping up the very same sensationalism that he claims he's trying to avoid in BFC.

Of course, it doesn't help his case with me that I am an ardent supporter of gun owners rights, and I really despise people who use fear-mongering to whip the unwashed masses into trying to take away my constitutional rights.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Katina Van-Derveld
If he was just expressing an extreme opinion, I could at least just write him off as a nutjob. But Moore flat-out lies, cutting his film together to form his version of the truth. I believe there's already a senator seeking legal action against Moore for slander in this film.

Go watch the trailer. The part where he's trying to coax congressmen into signing their kids up for the war is disgusting. Of course no one wants their kid to go and fight a war. It's not like they're dodging a draft.

Editorials in newspapers typically don't present both sides. They present their one sided diatribes. You know that going in. That's what Moore makes. He makes visual editorials.

I've seen the clips of Moore trying to get congressmen to sign their kids up for the military. It's a typically aggressive Moore tactic. One that he's used in practically every one of his films to try to embarrass his opposition.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

Originally posted by CMJ
Editorials in newspapers typically don't present both sides. They present their one sided diatribes. You know that going in. That's what Moore makes. He makes visual editorials.Exactly. It's an editorial, not a documentary. Yet many people take it as the gospel truth, and that's what he's trying to pass it off as.
I've seen the clips of Moore trying to get congressmen to sign their kids up for the military. It's a typically aggressive Moore tactic. One that he's used in practically every one of his films to try to embarrass his opposition. And embarassing your opposition to try to further your agenda is even lower than ad hominem attacks. Hey may as well be going "Hey Bush, you're a stupid-head!"

Charley is absolutely right. He complains about how the media feeds us fear and over-emphasizes issues, all while he's doing the exact same thing.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Katina Van-Derveld
Exactly. It's an editorial, not a documentary. Yet many people take it as the gospel truth, and that's what he's trying to pass it off as.

No, like I said earlier - many documentaries end up taking sides. Most do in fact. He's just more over the top about it. Triumph of the Will is considered one of the best documentaries of all time and it's Nazi propaganda. :p


And embarassing your opposition to try to further your agenda is even lower than ad hominem attacks. Hey may as well be going "Hey Bush, you're a stupid-head!"

It's something he's always done. Roger and Me does it most effectively. Plus, at that point, he's more trying to embarrass Congress(including and especially the Deomcrats who voted for the resolution) that Bush. He also at one point gets a Democratic Congressman to admit they don't even read every bill they vote on.


Charley is absolutely right. He complains about how the media feeds us fear and over-emphasizes issues, all while he's doing the exact same thing.

No argument with that one.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

Documentaries try to get a point across by presenting facts, even if they omit contradicting facts. It's my opinion that Moore is flat out lying the majority of the time.

And I was just using the "Bush" name as an example. Perhaps "Congress" would have worked as well, in it's place. My point was that he's using one of the most reprehensible tactics in politics. It's a large part of what I hate about how our so-called democracy works: It's all about image. You can make yourself look "enlightened" by digging up dirt on your opposition. But I fear we're veering off-topic here.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Katina Van-Derveld
It's my opinion that Moore is flat out lying the majority of the time.

I can't agree with that. He's just extremely selective and dishonest about the information he does display. Moore's actually a very masterful artist. I wish he could tone his biases down a tad, because his gift is overlooked by his politics and image.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

There's only so far you can twist facts and distort the truth until it becomes a lie.

[CMJ]

Here's what Moore does. He chooses the information that helps his cause the most. He ignores all other information. He will pick and choose what stuff to take from certain incidents - only using the most explosive. He edits things to where he doesn't even have to argue against something - he'll let you think that you draw that conclusion - HIS conclusion(one of his most effective devices).

Sometimes he argues both for and against the same thing(like we shouldn't have gone into Iraq...but we should've sent more soldiers in) to distract the audience. Moore occasionaly alters timeline to make things appear worse(or better depending) than they may have been.

He relies on bombarding you with so much info so fast that he can manipulate you to his way of thinking. Does he lie? No. Is it terribly honest? No. Is it effective? Hell Yes.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Go watch the trailer. The part where he's trying to coax congressmen into signing their kids up for the war is disgusting. Of course no one wants their kid to go and fight a war. It's not like they're dodging a draft.


Oh, so Congress are totally willing to send someone else's kids to a lie of a war... but not their own?

I call hypocrites.

And lets not go into Bush's well known Veitnam dodging himself...

Whatever you think of Moore, he raises some good issues and asks good questions. In his own way. I'm personally fully aware this film is his propaganda, but frankly it's no worse that the utter rubbish coming from the other side of the debate. (read - FOX News and the Administration)



It's my opinion that Moore is flat out lying the majority of the time.

Incorrect. He's presenting facts slated to his opinion. Bowlign for Columbine's main point wasnt that guns were bad - it's the atmosphere and attitude of fear in the USA that is bad. There is quite some truth, it appears to me. He made some very interestign and verifiable points.

Moore is good at the hatchet job. His critics try to do the same to him. The realilty is somewhere in the middle. That's just how political statements and opinions usually are.

[Kieran Devaneaux]

I've heard that Moore claims he does not have any political views. IMHO, he's full of crap, considering that all Fahrenheit 9/11 was (according to a friend or two who's told me about it) was a Bush-bashing flick. He's a Kerry-worshipper.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Kieran Devaneaux
I've heard that Moore claims he does not have any political views. IMHO, he's full of crap, considering that all Fahrenheit 9/11 was (according to a friend or two who's told me about it) was a Bush-bashing flick. He's a Kerry-worshipper.

You are wrong on the first point. Moore has stated in his books he utter hates Bush and what he has done, he clearly stated that he is out to hatchet Bush. He is not a kerry worshipper, in fact he also stated Kerry is NOT his preferred canditate. Wesley Clark was.

If this movie gets through to a few more people just how contemptable the administration is and how it has utterly squandered the good will gained in 11/9, how it lied to go to war and left Afghanistan even more of a ruin, then this is a good thing. I am all for it.

[JediBoricua]

I don't know if it'll be shown on theaters here, but I will see this movie.

Is Moore a propagandist? yes. Is he slanted to one side of the political spectrum? yes. does he want Bush out of office? Hell yes.

But so what. As far as Moore is to the left, is Limbaugh, Hannity, O'relly to the right. There have been ocasions when all of them have flat out lied, but most of the time they only present the facts that are favorable to their positions. It's their right and it makes for some interesting, and entertaining, political arguments.

If all politicians, commentators, filmakers were along the middle, oh what a boring place this would be.

If you're going to criticize Moore for being to far to the left and using his media powers to get his message accross, then you have to criticize those on the right as well.

Oh and btw, there is an anti-Moore documentary that will be released a couple of weeks after F9/11, it's called "Michael Moore hates America". I don't remember the website, but google it, the trailer is pretty damn funny.

[Jedieb]

Moore's film isn't opening near me. I will see it eventually, I just hope to see it in theaters. There's a small local theater that will probably get it in a few weeks so I'll probably catch it there. So far, it's getting a fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes. (Over 80%)

Having recently seen BFC I know the kinds of slanted views that F9/11 probably has in store for us. But I've heard there are parts of the film which stand on their own quite well. The story of a mother who lost her son in Iraq seems to be the strongest material the film has to offer. And the image of Bush sitting for 7 minutes after hearing of the SECOND plane crash is fuel for Bush-Bashers everywhere. I'm interested in seeing just how much Moore has removed himself from the camera. I've read more than 1 review which says that he appears on camera far less than he did in Roger or BFC.

[ReaperFett]

Far less than nearly the entire movie can be very variable :)

And it's still advertising with his face.

[Jedieb]

And it's still advertising with his face.
And Bush's, what's your point? It's his film, why shouldn't he promote it like this? The point is, more than one reviewer has noted that he's pulled back from being on screen more than in any of his other films. It looks like he's trying to let parts of the film speak for itself.

I'm not going to call it great or trash until I see it. I didn't enjoy BFC nearly as much as I thought I would. I thought it wasn't anywhere near as good as Roger & Me. Hell, I thought there were episodes of his old TV show that were better. I'm excited to see F9-11, but I'm more than willing to trash it if it doesn't work for me. Some people are going to hate it without ever watching it.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by Jedieb
And Bush's, what's your point? It's his film, why shouldn't he promote it like this?

Allegedly, it's his documentary. I see it more as a self publicising man with no moral compass going for more fame and money, but apparently it is a documentary, with no political message. "If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office", I quote.

[Jedieb]

Of course the film has a political message. He's stated on more than one occasion that he wants this movie to directly effect the election. You can't get more political than that. I'm sure that in the course of the hundreds of interviews that he's given over F9-11 that he's made some comments that can be pulled out of context to say that the film has "no political message." But even the one you've posted said "political speech", not a political message. He's said on more than one occasion that he's opposed to Bush and that this film is meant to criticize him. Anyone here could easily find plenty of Moore quotes stating exactly that, that he wants this film to hurt Bush. To say that he's doing it simply to grab more of a spotlight rings hollow. I'm sure part of him loves the attention, but I think he's much more interested in having this film get his views of Bush across than of getting his picture exposed more.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

Oh, so Congress are totally willing to send someone else's kids to a lie of a war... but not their own?Except that they're not asking anyone to join. And they certainly didn't confront random teenagers' parents and try to pressure them on camera. Pretty much everyone joined of their own free will. And I bet many parents weren't too happy about their children's decision to do so.

And as biased as Fox news is, it's nothing compared to the utter tripe Moore propogates.
He's presenting facts slated to his opinionIf by "facts" you mean "throwing people into awkward positions on camera in order to demonize them", then I suppose I agree.

Even if Moore has a valid point, his methods of getting the point across are simply too reprehensible. He disgusts me.
If all politicians, commentators, filmakers were along the middle, oh what a boring place this would be.You mean, you enjoy all of the conflict? Because I think this whole 2 party system just creates a really nasty dichotomy in our political structure that is very slowly but surely tearing us apart. I'm sick of just about every news source in the country being completely biased, one way or the other.

I'm not saying that his Bush-Bashing isn't justified. But don't try to manipulate my emotions to get your agenda across. You will fail miserably.

I'll watch it simply so that I can have an educated, informed opinion of it. Just like I did with BFC.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by Katina Van-Derveld
Even if Moore has a valid point, his methods of getting the point across are simply too reprehensible. He disgusts me.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Except that they're not asking anyone to join. And they certainly didn't confront random teenagers' parents and try to pressure them on camera. Pretty much everyone joined of their own free will. And I bet many parents weren't too happy about their children's decision to do so.

I think you missed my point. Please re-read.



And as biased as Fox news is, it's nothing compared to the utter tripe Moore propogates

Survey says.... Incorrect! FOX is as bad! Murdoch is a right wing crony.


Even if Moore has a valid point, his methods of getting the point across are simply too reprehensible. He disgusts me.

And Bush utterly disgusts me. I truly want to see Bush given a hatchet job. I'm all for Moore doing it, because he WILL do the job well.

[Master Yoghurt]

Like said earlier in the thread, Moores movies are like visual editorials, or political commentaries rather than documentary. He selectively displays some facts in order to get his arguments across. When he raises some good questions (which he actually does most of the time), its brutally effective to the point its downright embarassing for those who oppose his views. When the argumentation techique infuriates so many right wingers, its a telling sign he is right! :lol

[Charley]

What exactly were those "good questions" in Bowling for Columbine again?

All I seem to remember is that he was whining about media sensationalism & a culture of violence by creating a sensationalist piece about violence :huh

Ohhhhh yeah, he also edited Charlton Heston more than Lucas edited Jar Jar binks, and as if to put the cherry on my hot fudge sundae, he then used his stupid guerrilla tactics to bully K-Mart into stopping the sale of pistol ammunition.

WAY TO GO YOU FAT BLIMP! Please to be taking away other places where I can buy ammo at economical prices.

What a ham :shootin

[CMJ]

Marcus, with all due respect...FOX News isn't even the same universe as Moore. Not as entertainment OR propaganda.

Limbaugh and his cronies are more the correct parallels I'd say.

[JediBoricua]

You mean, you enjoy all of the conflict? Because I think this whole 2 party system just creates a really nasty dichotomy in our political structure that is very slowly but surely tearing us apart. I'm sick of just about every news source in the country being completely biased, one way or the other.

Guilty as charged. Politics by nature leads to conflict, and most of the times IMO that conflict and strong discussions of points of view leads to better decisions and solutions, and sometimes is just plain fun.

But I have a very skewed point of view. Since I was a little boy I've been inmersed in politics through my family. You can say I've been raised to cherish that conflict.

I do understand when people get sick of it all, and the nastiness iof politics does tend to alienate people from the process, but for me it's just part of the job.

[ReaperFett]

Just quoting someone from another board:


Sorry to politic in, and I probably won't be around to reply to my replies but a couple of problems with the movie I got from the paper today:


1. Moore's favorite anti-Bush interviewee Richard Clarke is used as his source on many of his perspectives. However, what he doesn't mention is that Clarke was the one who ordered the gathering of the Bin Laden family to fly out of America.

2. He tirades on the relationship between Bush and the Saudi's yet completely ignores the equally cushy relationship Clinton enjoyed.

3. Says the Saudi's have given the Bush's nearly $ 1.5 Billion yet that's odd when the Bush's are nowhere near Billionaires. Upon careful listening one realizes hes says the Bush's (and very quickly slips in "and friends")

4. Asserts the fact that the Afghan war was engineered to facilitate the development of a pipeline by the company Unocal. However Unocal dropped the idea in 1998.

5. He asserts no elitest Congressman's kids are enlisted. Tell that to Senator Biden, Tim Johnson and John Ashcroft.

6. He shows an amicable life in Iraq with children playing in the streets and then suddenly cuts to images of a burning building. What he doesn't tell you is the building burning is the Ministry of defense in a restricted section of the city that Iraqi's were not able to visit.

He also neglects the fact that 1/6 the population was in exile and that this regime tortured and murdered thousands.


Believe me I am no Bush apologist. That guy has been a major disappointment to me. Had the Democrats nominated Lieberman, he's who I would vote for. but there is no excuse for fabrication to propel an engender. Imagine if this was a conservative leaning film orchestrating the same propoganda. The public would go nuts. All right, back to lurking.

[Katina Van-Derveld]

^ Haven't seen it myself to nitpick yet, but I have to agree with his sentiments at the end.

[JediBoricua]

That suspiciously looks like a GOP talking points list.

No common guy would know all that precise information by himself, hell the film hasn't even opened yet.

[ReaperFett]

Originally posted by JediBoricua
That suspiciously looks like a GOP talking points list.

No common guy would know all that precise information by himself, hell the film hasn't even opened yet.
People have seen it.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Marcus, with all due respect...FOX News isn't even the same universe as Moore. Not as entertainment OR propaganda.

I very much beg to disagree. Murdoch controlled media is in exactly the same boat - it is a right wing mouthpiece that expounds Murdoch's ideals to the letter. There is no freedom of editorial or of content - for example, out of all the mainstream media around the world, the majority that had serious doubts on the war.... all 143 media outlets within Murdoch mouthed exactly the same pro war line. This is not journalism, this is straight out propaganda.


3. Says the Saudi's have given the Bush's nearly $ 1.5 Billion yet that's odd when the Bush's are nowhere near Billionaires. Upon careful listening one realizes hes says the Bush's (and very quickly slips in "and friends")

In Moore's books, the "and friends" (meaning like Cheney), is very, very clear.


2. He tirades on the relationship between Bush and the Saudi's yet completely ignores the equally cushy relationship Clinton enjoyed.

As has been made 100% clear, this is a Bush hatchet job and Moore makes no excuse for it. What Moore is really claiming is that the Bush family have a much closer and personal ties


6. He shows an amicable life in Iraq with children playing in the streets and then suddenly cuts to images of a burning building. What he doesn't tell you is the building burning is the Ministry of defense in a restricted section of the city that Iraqi's were not able to visit.

And.... what was his point?


He also neglects the fact that 1/6 the population was in exile and that this regime tortured and murdered thousands.

And Bush Administration started a war on big lies, killed thousands of civilians in that war and tortured innocent Iraqis for no reason against all conventions........ oh snap. Ummm....,.....

Gee, I think there's a problem there Houston.


Imagine if this was a conservative leaning film orchestrating the same propoganda

The Bush Administration went to war on what is now proven BS, killing thousands of americans and Iraqis, destroying the infrastructure of a country, tortured and killed in Abu Grabu (sp), spend well over 100 billion doing it... and there's still huge numbers of right wing conservatives who support Bush.

Personally, I find that far more obnoxious than some film spouting the personal opinions of one man. Yet, you have so many right wingers who swallow the Administraions BS every day.

You have Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh spouting right wing rot. Personally, Moore is just balancing the right wing loonies out. Good on him.

[Dan the Man]

The only problem is, the dead would walk again if the right wing mouthpieces attempted to turd this film off as a documentary.

Its somehow "okay" when Moore does it? :huh

[Dasquian Belargic]

Personally, Moore is just balancing the right wing loonies out. Good on him.

Two wrongs don't make a right :\

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
The only problem is, the dead would walk again if the right wing mouthpieces attempted to turd this film off as a documentary.

Its somehow "okay" when Moore does it? :huh

IMO, there's actually some things in this opinion piece that need to be said and spelt out to Joe Nascar faun.

Personally, what one needs to do is get opinion pieces from both sides of the fence - given the noise the right wing media makes generally these days and the bias in it, we do need a strong left wing voice to countermeasure - two extremes will hopefully begin to create a more middle road voice that is badly missing once again.

I call that the Voice of Reason. It's been missing or been yelled over since 11/9, to our detriment. Moore is part of the natural rebalancing process, which I hope does bring back the resonable middle ground. We really have been far too olarised for too long - look what polarisation has bought us.

In australia, it's allowed a pint sized fear mongering retard to continue in power and even be a bit popular, much to the disbelief of plenty. In america, it's allowed a noxious bunch of neo-cons to destroy the good will and standing of the USA, bought the PATRIOT act, Abu Grabu, Guatanamo Bay, Fear of arabs or anyone vaguely arab.... really the list can go on, but my time before I have to get on the road is short, so I'll cut it there.

To have a more just society, one with a good deal less fear mongering and true fairness, we need to pull back from the right wing policies of current USA / UK / Aust governments and centralise , even dip to the left a bit. That's what I hope Moore will with - yes, it'll put some people offside, but he should allow more moderate views to be heard and take some influence.

[Dan the Man]

Thats pretty funny, you thinking that there isn't left wing bias in the media. Funny funny.

Moore isn't the answer to Fox News.

MTV is the answer to Fox News. Lifetime is the answer to Fox News. Indymedia is the answer to Fox News. If you think that media indoctrination is a right-wing game, you're a day late and a dollar short here.

Moore isn't an answer to Coulter or Limbaugh either.

That would fall to Al Franken, Reverend Jackson, Reverend Sharpton, and their ilk. These are talking heads that have their own limited exposures. Yes, Franken's been in movies and other forms of entertainment, but I don't readily recall Stuart Smalley telling me who to vote for.

Moore is a horrible escalation in this game of marginalization of the media that we've been playing for years. He has no counterweight, and isn't the answer to anything.

Moore isn't fighting back, he's throwing the first punch in a whole other nasty bar room brawl.

[CMJ]

This is the review from LA Weekly. For those of you not familiar with our fine city's newspapaers - this is one of the most liberal rags in the country I'd wager. I was somewhat surprised with this review - which is positive - that is still far more balanced than I would've thought.

Especially since the paper generally fills at least a 3rd of it's content with editorial peices against the President.

********************************

Burning Bush
Fahrenheit 9/11 stokes the anti-Bush bonfires
by Ella Taylor


Pre-sold, unsold and resold amid a tsunami of mostly self-generated publicity, Fahrenheit 9/11 comes encrusted with so much advance bluster, one goes to the movie expecting it to drop a 10,000-pound bomb on George Bush’s head. In fact the film, which has little in the way of fresh dirt on Bush or his government’s lousy record at home and abroad, is Michael Moore’s most sober film yet. That’s not saying much: Fahrenheit 9/11 is still a roaring, and for the most part richly deserved, hatchet job on the Bush presidency. It’s also a bid to recapture patriotism from the conservatives and enshrine it as a left virtue, largely by paying its respects to the dispossessed Americans who are staffing a war they don’t understand and, increasingly, don’t want to wage. Whether these same Americans will go to see Fahrenheit 9/11 remains an open question. Juiced by the success of Bowling for Columbine, the hungry distributors of Moore’s new film (Lions Gate Films, IFC Films, and something called the Fellowship Adventure Group, which sounds like a Quaker scouting organization) plan to open the movie on hundreds of screens across the country, surely a first for any documentary.

If that’s what you want to call Fahrenheit 9/11. Whether you see the movie as a persuasive alterna-history of recent Republican government or a crude demolition job on Bush — it’s both, in spades — will depend as much on what you think nonfiction film is supposed to do as it will on your political affiliations. The reporting is hardly new. You’d have to be hopelessly out of the loop not to have heard about the unholy business ties between the Bushes and those “lovely human beings” (as a Saudi friend of the Bushes calls them in the movie) the bin Ladens. (It’s right there in Moore’s most recent book, Dude, Where’s My Country?, though it wasn’t he who broke the story, but the Boston Globe.) Or about the government’s pre-9/11 failure to attend to evidence of a coming attack on the United States by al Qaeda. Or about its milking of post-9/11 public fears to create a bogus, not to say incompetent, war on terror, which, according to Moore, was designed to soften up the public for a coming war with Iraq.

Moore is too savvy a media wrangler not to realize that most news dates in five minutes these days. But he’s a master cutter and paster of other people’s images to suit his own ends. (Perhaps that’s what Quentin Tarantino was referring to when, handing Moore the Palme d’Or at Cannes, he found it necessary to stress that Fahrenheit 9/11 won for good filmmaking, not for its politics.) And he’s a very funny guy, which is why he gets $6 million to make his movies, while the growing numbers of other lefty political documentarians labor on with their video cameras and their $2,000 budgets. But even as you’re laughing, you get the uncomfortable sense you’re being recruited, and not always honestly, to Moore’s us-and-them point of view. So while it is enormously entertaining to watch footage of the idiotic gizmos (among them, a man-size safe, and a miniparachute that lets you leap 10 stories and more in the attempt to save yourself from dark-skinned predators) invented by entrepreneurial wannabes to capitalize on the war on terror, or the lone state trooper assigned to protect several hundred miles of vulnerable Oregon coastline from terrorists, you also remember just how anxious you really felt after September 11. Likewise, it is fun to see Paul Wolfowitz spit on his comb before raking it though his hair, or Bush fidgeting irritably under a television makeup person’s fussing, though in mid-yuk you almost forget to ask what that tells you about the way either man does his job.

Moore does some useful, if hardly new, skewering of the gap between Bush’s words and his policies, among them his fulsome praise for “our boys in Iraq” even as he recommends cuts in the pay of combat soldiers and assistance to their families. But Moore has never been good at drawing the line between political critique and personal attack — or worse, he recognizes it and presses on regardless. Those of us who are driven up the wall by Bush’s frat-boy humor, by the disingenuous folksiness with which he dispenses meaningless bromides in his speeches, or who were nauseated by the cowboy swagger of his landing on that aircraft carrier, may get a big kick out of seeing him ridiculed, but we may end up feeling bought. It’s in his lampooning of Bush the man that Moore is at his most effective — and also at his cheapest. More than once Moore shows us Bush’s face in close-up on September 11 as, preparing to read My Pet Goat to a group of inner-city elementary schoolers, he tries to absorb the news of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Beady eyes swiveling in agitation, he gazes vacantly around the room for several minutes, then starts reading to the kids. In his softly insinuating voice-over, Moore reads the scene for us as a classic case of Bush being unable to function without a script. It is just as likely that, like the rest of us on hearing those first reports, the man was in total shock. And what Moore fails to tell us is that even some on the left admired the way Bush handled himself in the days after the disaster. The president may have shifty eyes and an unhelpful way with syntax, but that in itself doesn’t make him an idiot. In the current issue of The Atlantic, James Fallows argues that Bush began his political career with substantial debating skills, and that although they seem to have gone AWOL while he’s been in office, he may yet give John Kerry a run for his money in the presidential debates. Certainly he gives Moore a run in Fahrenheit 9/11. When the filmmaker shouts out a question across a crowded room, Bush yells back affably, “Behave yourself. And get a real job.”

For better and worse, Moore is a simplifier who extracts both heavy irony and heavy tragedy from the juxtaposition of unrelated images. Perhaps in response to critical distaste for his emotionally manipulative style, Moore has scaled back his own presence in Fahrenheit 9/11, and mostly for the better. He’s still there, guiding our responses in voice-over. But the stunts aimed at embarrassing the rich and powerful, or educating the poor and dispossessed, are few and far between. We see him being hassled by the Secret Service just for hanging around the Saudi Embassy, then outside the Capitol as he hassles bemused congressmen to sign up their own sons for service in Iraq. When it comes to ordinary people, Moore has always been something of an emotional terrorist, a practitioner of what Saul Bellow calls “potato love” — smothering people you barely know with pseudo-intimacy and flattery until you have them eating out of your hand. In Moore’s earlier films, when you saw that big, protective paw settle around the shoulders of an unsuspecting regular Joe, you knew some serious psychological pressure was about to come down. In Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore holds back, and properly so. Back home in chronically unemployed Flint, Michigan, he finds Lila Lipscomb, a self-styled conservative Democrat who sent all her kids to the military and then, after the death of one of her sons in Iraq, became disenchanted with the war. In some of the movie’s most genuinely affective moments, Moore tactfully remains off camera and allows this passionate, highly articulate woman to speak for herself.

He’s not quite so hands-off with the imagery of war. Moore shows us a pre-war Baghdad of kids playing in the streets and smiling men eating in sidewalk cafés — I guess it was harder to get footage of the thousands who disappeared into Saddam Hussein’s torture chambers — and of Iraq now, with wounded children screaming in pain from the ruins of their bombed houses. He shows us U.S. soldiers conducting humiliating house-to-house searches (“Immoral behavior begets immoral behavior,” Moore intones, fingering their superiors in Washington lest we blame the proletarian grunts themselves) and being carried away wounded themselves. “And for what?” someone asks rhetorically.

Well, yes. As I write, evidence is pouring out of the 9/11 Commission report that in terms of the official reasons for which it was waged — the famous disappearing WMDs, Hussein’s alleged ties to al Qaeda and his alleged plot to attack the United States — the invasion of Iraq has been an unqualified disaster. Moore, though, wants us to see the mere existence of casualties as proof that the war is illegitimate. Would he take the same approach for casualties of World War II? Or, more pertinently, a war waged on Iraq for the purposes of freeing the country of a despot with the blood of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens on his hands? The awful truth is that every war has its dead and dying, but we are still obliged to distinguish between wars that are morally justified and those that are not. It is not intrinsically right-wing to believe that powerful nations have a duty to help free weaker ones from internal tyranny. Moore is right — though he is hardly the first to say it — that that’s not primarily why Bush went into this war. But the director has boxed himself into arguing that the invasion of Iraq was wrong on any grounds, which sounds suspiciously like isolationism, a problematic position for any leftist with a sense of responsibility to the world beyond his own borders.

Moore has made no secret of his ambitions for Fahrenheit 9/11. He wants the movie to shift the public into voting Bush out of the White House. That may be as grandiose as his hiring of a killer consulting firm to counter any attacks on the movie from the right. (Right now, there’s little Moore can’t take care of on his bellicose lonesome, unless you count Bush Senior, who gets trashed in the movie and has called him a “slimeball” for tarnishing his son’s image, or a cranky Ray Bradbury, who cussed out the filmmaker for stealing the title of his novel Fahrenheit 451 and then changing it without permission.) Movies tend not to topple regimes, however unsavory. Still, Fahrenheit 9/11 may yet accomplish a more modest, if no less salutary goal — severing the thin membrane that binds Harvey Weinstein, who initially bought the film, to Disney, who unloaded it and, in the ensuing bother, all but engineered a smash hit.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11 | Written and directed by MICHAEL MOORE Produced by JIM CZARNECKI and KATHLEEN GLYNN | Released by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group | Citywide

[Figrin D'an]

Most reviews I have read, be they positive or negative, indicate that the film is a lot more bluster and hype than anything else. It isn't going to have the effect on the populous that Moore wants it to, especially being released so far before the November election.


David Poland's piece on it was pretty interesting.

http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2004_thb/040610_thu.html

[CMJ]

Poland has been writing pieces on it for a few weeks now. I love that guy. :cool

[Marcus Telcontar]

Moore, though, wants us to see the mere existence of casualties as proof that the war is illegitimate. Would he take the same approach for casualties of World War II? Or, more pertinently, a war waged on Iraq for the purposes of freeing the country of a despot with the blood of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens on his hands?

While the review was to the main quite fair and resonable, I do have to draw issue with this strawman. World War II is probably, genuinely the only justified war. Hilter was a clear and present danger to the world, as was Japan and Italy.

As I have stated before, if your going to use humanitarian reasoning to justify the war in Iraq, you really have to ask why not North Korea, or Zimbabwe or other countries where conditions are worse - what about Wester Sudan? I'm afraid, when it comes down to it, you just cant do that. There is no moral right to invade to remove a dictactor, if he does not pose a real danger to you.


It isn't going to have the effect on the populous that Moore wants it to, especially being released so far before the November election.


It's preaching to the converted. Still.... be interestign to see where the debate goes from here.

[CMJ]

Marcus, I don't think the reviewer was unfair to ask those questions. Not in the least. Like I said - the LA Weekly is a pretty dang liberal rag. I for one was shocked they had anything bad to say about the movie. It's pretty funny when the most balanced commentary on the whole situation comes from their film reviewer.

This is not a balanced paper at all. Yet, I read it religiously, because it's typically very well written even when it irritates me.

[Dutchy]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-moore24f.html

3.5 stars from Ebert.

According to Ebert "the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself":

Although Moore's narration ranges from outrage to sarcasm, the most devastating passage in the film speaks for itself. That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room. His inexplicable paralysis wasn't underlined in news reports at the time, and only Moore thought to contact the teacher in that schoolroom -- who, as it turned out, had made her own video of the visit. The expression on Bush's face as he sits there is odd indeed.

[CMJ]

Which is some of the same footage that the LA Weekly said was unfair. ;)

[Darth Vader]

Wait, Ebert has credibility since when?

[Dutchy]

Why was it unfair?

[Darth Vader]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Why was it unfair?

Because Presidents are naturally supposed to be unfeeling cyborgs that do not dawdle in response time, no matter how horrible the disaster.

One second, you're reading to school kids. The next, the WTC is falling down. Think fast, Einstein.

[CMJ]

Don't take my words for in Dutchy...read the dang review. It's his opinion, not mine...I haven't seen the flick yet. If you have a problem with that they said email the critic. :p

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well he honestly should have the left the room, forget the kids what was going on was way more important.

[JMK]

The result of his choice is moot at this point, he froze like a deer in the headlights when told of the 2nd attack, people don't need to see their president do that at a time like that.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by JMK
The result of his choice is moot at this point, he froze like a deer in the headlights when told of the 2nd attack, people don't need to see their president do that at a time like that.

Yeah, because I'm sure none of us did the exact same thing when we heard about what had happened.

He's human, just like the rest of us. Everyone was in shock at what happened, including him. The difference is, while all of us were essentially helpless to do anything but watch, he actually was going to have to start making far-reaching decisions, such as whether or not to scramble aircraft to corale and potentially shoot down any other hijacked planes. As the Commander-in-Chief, he knew there were things he would have to do in response to what happened, many of which could have directly or indirectly resulted in the deaths of more civilians.

I think that would give pause to just about anyone.

Yeah, he froze, and on camera, that sure doesn't look good. My guess is, a lot of us would have done the same thing in his shoes.

[Dan the Man]

There weren't any cameras on FDR when Pearl happened.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well his reaction isn't my problem, is his staying there for 7 minutes. Forget the kids get to somewhere and take control of the situation. FDR when Pearl Harbor happened called his cabinet around him and called an emergency meeting as soon as he heard of the attacks the man actually was more on the ball. But he was one of our greatest leaders.

[Figrin D'an]

Originally posted by Dan the Man
There weren't any cameras on FDR when Pearl happened.


Or on Kennedy when he heard that Khrushchev had authorized his commanders in Cuba to launch tactical nuclear missiles if it looked like the US was going to invade.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well his reaction isn't my problem, is his staying there for 7 minutes. Forget the kids, get to somewhere to ...... whatever

Exactly. That would have been the first thing someone half competent would have done

[JMK]

This is what I meant by saying he was frozen like a deer in the headlights. Yes, most of us were in shock when we heard, but when you're the 'leader of the free world', you have to snap in to action, at least within 7 minutes.

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
Well his reaction isn't my problem, is his staying there for 7 minutes. Forget the kids get to somewhere and take control of the situation. FDR when Pearl Harbor happened called his cabinet around him and called an emergency meeting as soon as he heard of the attacks the man actually was more on the ball. But he was one of our greatest leaders.

Accroding to whom...his staff? No camera's were there to record his reaction in the first 10 minutes after he learned we'd been bombed. You think his staff would say he wasn't on top of it?

I'm not saying he was or he wasn't - but c'mon dude. No one can know that for certain.

[Jedi Master Carr]

well he could have left the room that is what I mean. It made him look bad to stay there like that. The kids really were that important, him doing story time then isn't the most important thing. It is more how it looks and it was a really bad decision, IMO. If It was me I would have been out there and doing something, but that is my opinion.

[ReaperFett]

With the death of (Lila) Lipscomb's son in Iraq, Moore himself turns exploiter. Her grief, of course, is genuine. So is our response to it. But when Moore prompts her to read her son's final letter out loud, and she cries helplessly as she does so, it becomes clear that the filmmaker's intrusiveness knows no bounds, and that he would sacrifice the dignity of even his beloved Flintians for political theater. ... Moore is a maker of agit-entertainment, of cinematic essays whose express purpose is to convince. That's fine as long as he's respecting his audience. But when he pushes the camera into Lipscomb's weeping face and keeps it there, he's saying that he doesn't trust you to think for yourself. And that is when he becomes his enemy.

- Ty Burr, Boston Globe

[Jedieb]

Bush's 7-minute frozen deer stare is embarrasing, there's no doubt about it. If not for the teacher's video the admnistration would have flat out denied it. Members of Bush's staff at first described the President's indecision as a "few moments." From what I've read, the 7-minute sequence only ended when someone from Bush's staff told the President he should go. Bush was rocked, no doubt about it. As time went on he got himself under control and did an admirable job of comforting the nation, but those first few minutes weren't his finest.

As for the Lipscomb sequence, I think it'll end up being one of the highlights of the film. I've got no problem with it whatsoever. The more people get exposed to images such as those the better.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by CMJ
Don't take my words for in Dutchy...read the dang review. It's his opinion, not mine...I haven't seen the flick yet. If you have a problem with that they said email the critic. :p

I don't have a problem with it, I was just curious what that article said.

[Dutchy]

$8.2M estimated and the #1 spot on Friday, btw.

[ReaperFett]

http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/ - Farenheit fact check.

[Jedieb]

That blog has RNC written all over it. Just hit one link and you'll find yourself in Blogs For Bush, Nirvana. Going there looking for FACTS is a wasted effort. I looked over the section on Bush's Guard service and it's a joke. They completely ignore the FACT that his flight status was SUSPENDED for missing his physical. Or that Bush's claim that he missed it because his physician was unavailable is a flat out LIE. Those flight physicals were only given by MILITARY physicians, not personal ones. I'm not impressed.

We can argue whether F9-11 is really a documentary, but the fact is that's what it's going to be recognized as. He's probably going to set the B.O. record for documentaries in its opening weekend. Moore played the opponents of the film like a harp. All the objections, protests, and lawsuits just gave it more publicity. From a purely B.O. stance, he wins big time, they lose. He must be loving it.

[Dasquian Belargic]

For some reason, the local independent / art house cinema is giving students from my college discount on tickets to see Farenheit 9/11, so I'm going to check it out today.

EDIT - I don't really know how factual it was, but it was amusing.

[JediBoricua]

Saw it last night.

I don't know how effective the film will be 'swinging' the election, my bet is it wont. It was preaching to the converted.

But it was amusing, enterntaining, and in bits very powerful. I did not like how he played the mother who had lost his son in Iraq, it was too much of an overkill.

It really makes Bush seem like a clown and destroys the whole Al-Quade=Iraq and the WMD's. But then again, that's nothing we didn't already know.

The Saudi-Bush connections are interesting, but kinda weak.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Of note is that Moore has stated that he wants people to download F9/11 from P2P networks and Bit Torrent and even given explicit blessing to this.

[Jedieb]

The wife and I saw it last night. I thought it was much better than BFC. The second half of the film focused on Iraq and that's the part that had the biggest impact on me. It was pretty emotional at times and you see images you don't catch on network or even cable news shows. I doubt it will have much of an effect on the converted. But it's the kind of film that I think can influence some swing voters, independents, and even Nader supporters.

[Dutchy]

Saw it. Very interesting and compelling.

Gotta love his sarcasm.

[Stafford]

It was thought-provoking, but you had to approach it in moderation, if that makes any sense.

I thought the Bonanza-Afghanistan part and the "Coalition of the Willing" list was just hilarious, as was the background on Aschcroft. The Attorney General singing is something I would never have thought to have paid to see.

[Figrin D'an]

While approaching some subjects from interesting points of view, the film didn't do anything in terms of influencing my opinion on certain matters, and I would certainly qualify myself as an "independent" among the voting populous. I suppose, for those living in a cave for the past 3 years or those who get their news exclusively from FOX, it might be a bit of an eye-opener. However, for those who care to say informed, there's little, beyond the personal stories of the people Moore interviewed, that is new or insightful in what the film presents. It's intent is to rile up the viewer into a mad, foaming-at-the-mouth rage with strong imagery and just enough information to convince said viewer into believing he/she has the full story.

I was somewhat impressed that very little of the information he presented was "incorrect." Most of it was factual... it was mearly a matter of said information being "incomplete." In that respect, I give Moore credit... he produced a wonderful piece of propaganda that doesn't outright lie, just skews the truth with carefully placed omissions (kind of like BFC, only more perfected this time around).

It had its moments of entertainment, and garnered a few chuckles from me here and there. That's about it, though.

[Figrin D'an]

Mildly amusing semi-related story...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/19/ronstadt.reut/index.html

lol... as if her career weren't dead enough already. I guess she really wants to skewer it with a pike if she wants out of Vegas gigs.

[Dutchy]

Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=4&u=/nm/campaign_bush_dc

Bush... the peace president. :lol

[Jedieb]

What really offends me about the whole Rondstadt affair is that in more than one article she's referred to as a "rocker." Idiots. :evil

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Apologies to the Thread Necromancing Committee, but I had to add to this thread.

http://www.fahrenhype911.com/ I bought and watched *this* DVD, and it's really good. It really puts Michael Moore in his place, and I'd recommend it to everyone who's seen Farenheit 9/11.

[Clarrke Benq]

.... if some basic reseach is correct, then this propaganda piece by twerp Morris isnt worth spit.

Lets take some words by Mr Morris

http://www.vote.com/newsletter/

I'd cut and paste his words of wisdom, but I think that one paragraph needs to be read, where he complains the media is running a negative view on Iraq.

"Reality of a war being won and a fantasy of a quagmire and disaster"

You know, last time I looked, Iraq is exactly threatenign to be a quagmire and disaster. Who is this guy? What drugs is he smoking?

No, I wont see this Hype DVD and I wont see F9/11 either. Both Moore and this Morris aint got a shred worth of credibility.

[Gurney Devries]

That's when Bush, who was reading My Pet Goat to a classroom of Florida children, is notified of the second attack on the World Trade Center, and yet lingers with the kids for almost seven minutes before finally leaving the room.I believe I heard on the radio that it was 5 minutes, not 7. And what Moore doesn't tell you is that one of his advisors, off camera, wrote a note saying "DO NOTHING" and flashed it at him. You can see him look up and acknowledge the note.

I don't know how true that is, but it sounds very plausible to me. And given Moore's reputation (or lack thereof), I'm very inclined to believe it. Also, take into account the fact that he can't just get up and go: He has an entire team of people with him that have to be ready before he can go anywhere.

I'm not a Bush apologist, by any stretch of the imagination. But this one particular point gets harped on so often and so loudly that I think it's absurd.

[James Prent]

Originally posted by Gurney Devries
I believe I heard on the radio that it was 5 minutes, not 7. And what Moore doesn't tell you is that one of his advisors, off camera, wrote a note saying "DO NOTHING" and flashed it at him. You can see him look up and acknowledge the note.

I don't know how true that is, but it sounds very plausible to me. And given Moore's reputation (or lack thereof), I'm very inclined to believe it. Also, take into account the fact that he can't just get up and go: He has an entire team of people with him that have to be ready before he can go anywhere.

I'm not a Bush apologist, by any stretch of the imagination. But this one particular point gets harped on so often and so loudly that I think it's absurd.
they actually have the teacher who was there in the FarenHype movie, and she confirms that story. the 5 minutes... and also that it was much better to finish with the kids, rather than jump up and run out of the room and possibly panic an entire nation more than it already was.

[Charley]

I always considered it fairly comical for people who were expecting Bush to snap to attention at that very moment and turn the kindergarten class into a war room.

"LAUNCH THE MISSILES, DEPLOY THE MARINES, GET ME SOME COOKIES AND KOOL-AID!"

I'll second Gurney's reservations about that. It seems like a pretty tacky thing to gripe about.

[jjwr]

I'm sorry but when the US is under attack as he found out it was after the second plane hit as the President of the Country you don't sit there looking at a childrens book.

He's the president, its part of the deal that he may have to leave at any moments notice.

I'm not saying its all his fault but it is sad, he should have been up and in action not sitting there.

[Gurney Devries]

Yeah, it's easy for you to say that years later, after everyone else has already beaten the point to death. Until you're placed in the same position, I wouldn't criticize.

[Jedi Master Carr]

If had been me I been out of their. I said sorry kids I have to go. And leave. Maybe it is advisors fault but imo it was bad advise.

[jjwr]

Yeah, it's easy for you to say that years later, after everyone else has already beaten the point to death. Until you're placed in the same position, I wouldn't criticize.

Of course its easy to say it, he was wrong, no doubt about it. Your country is under attack, you don't sit there worry about upsetting some school children and reading a book, you get off your butt and get to work.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You know, you elect men and women to positions of power and there is an expectation they are capable of acting quickly when the need arises. There's an expectation for what jjwr said. The very least would be to say reading time over and go find out what the hell is going on.

As any emergency services personell can tell you, the first minutes are critical in a crisis. It's pretty true that Bush actually acted like you would expect a day or two after and I suspect not many could have handled the situation better. But, his initial on the day reactions left a lot to be desired.

[Pierce Tondry]

I have to ask this of JMC and jjwr: do either of you have kids? I know Marcus doesn't.

[March Kalas]

Yeah, it's easy for you to say that years later, after everyone else has already beaten the point to death. Until you're placed in the same position, I wouldn't criticize.


exactly. At first, he probably didn't even believe it happened. I remember when I saw the TV screen on the morning of 9-11, I really couldn't believe it was happening for the whole morning. When I first saw it, I was literally frozen solid and I believe anyone would have been if they weren't some amazing stoic or something.

Another point to think about, If it had been a democratic president that had waited 5 minutes, then the media probably would have said it was an indicator that the president had a heart for his country to the point that he was almost stunned, and they would have praised him for it. Either that, or the detail would never even get out to the public unless you were really seeking it.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Originally posted by jjwr
Of course its easy to say it, he was wrong, no doubt about it. Your country is under attack, you don't sit there worry about upsetting some school children and reading a book, you get off your butt and get to work.


You also should wait until you have your thoughts all collected, so you can be composed and take control of the situation properly, WHICH HE DID.

Five minutes! FIVE STINKIN' MINUTES. Good grief, if he'd been on the john when 9/11 happened, it might have taken that long before he'd gotten out and gone to work on the situation.

Like Gurney said: it's been done to death, and it really doesn't MATTER. Bush handled 9/11 admirably! No one I know of has contested his actions immediately after 9/11. The only thing 'liberals' (or whoever they are) can grasp ahold of to gripe about is that the President of the United States waited five minutes before getting up and being completely briefed on the situation, and then taking actions.

To say that the President waited the 5 minutes because he was 'stunned' is untrue. He was told to wait by his staff, and I watched the video of him in front of the classroom full of third graders - he did not look stunned, flabbergasted, shocked, or otherwise discombobulated.

I believe the point that you are all trying to make is completely and totally irrelevant.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Originally posted by Pierce Tondry
I have to ask this of JMC and jjwr: do either of you have kids? I know Marcus doesn't.

I have a nephew and have been around kids a lot in my life. Believe me they would have gotten over it.

[Jedieb]

I've got 3 kids and have taught hundreds, you bet your butt they would have gotten over it. Hell, I'd wager half of those kids didn't even know what the President's name was before their teacher told them he was coming to visit. And people keep saying 5-7 minutes, it's actually closer to 25-27 minutes. He'd been told about the first plane BEFORE he entered the classroom. Some freakin' alarm bells should have gone off and he should have done SOMETHING when he was told a SECOND plane had attacked us. Remember, he still had to have an aide tell him to get up. It was only 5 or 7 because someone finally told him to get up. It could have gone on longer. Can anyone imagine Cheney just sitting on his butt and staring blankly off into space? It's very simple; "Boys and girls, I'm afraid I have to cut our visit short. I've enjoyed our time together. Thank you very much." It would have been less exciting than a friggin' fire drill. The idea that he was sparing the children is simply laughable.

On the other side, I have no problem with him not returning to Washington immediately. The Secret Service had legitimate reasons for diverting the plane. Eventually, Bush returned to Washington quicker then they would have liked. Eventually he got a hold of himself, but there's no denying that his initial reaction was nothing to brag about.


Another point to think about, If it had been a democratic president that had waited 5 minutes, then the media probably would have said it was an indicator that the president had a heart for his country to the point that he was almost stunned, and they would have praised him for it. Either that, or the detail would never even get out to the public unless you were really seeking it.
:lol You're kidding right? If that had been Gore sitting there he'd have been bashed as a weak liberal who wasn't fit or prepared to defend the country. Hell, if Gore had been in office the Republicans would be taking them to task over 9-11 without mercy. "Look what's happened after 2 consecutive Dem presidents, blah, blah, blah." And let's not even pretend that Gore wouldn't have retaliated against Afghanistan and Al-Qaida. ANY brainstem in the Oval Office would have put that together. Where the response would have diverged is clearly Iraq. Hell, a Powell presidency wouldn't have taken us into Iraq.

[Pierce Tondry]

Originally posted by Jedi Master Carr
I have a nephew and have been around kids a lot in my life. Believe me they would have gotten over it.

I didn't ask whether your experience suggested they'd get over it, I asked whether you had kids. It's a simple question and isn't meant to imply anything.

[jjwr]

So what was the point of the question then?

[Jedieb]

Exactly. Hey, while we're at it, why don't we all list our professional and personal childhood qualifications. Just for the hell of it!

[Pierce Tondry]

I'm weighing the tone in poster responses with that poster's experience with children. It's a personal interest thing, and no one's forcing anyone to respond. Say nothing if you like.

Jedieb, I didn't ask anything about you and I don't appreciate you mocking me. Kindly butt out, or I'll report you for harassment.

[Jedieb]

Lighten up Francis.

[Pierce Tondry]

Take your own advice.

[jjwr]

What your doing is trolling, and its not appreciated.

Re: Lighten Up Francis...

If anyone looks at me I'll kill them, if anyone touches my stuff I'll kill them, if anyone calls me Francis...I'll kill them!

As for me, I've got a 12 yr old step daughter and regularly coach basketball for 4th-6th graders.

[Jedieb]

If anyone looks at me I'll kill them, if anyone touches my stuff I'll kill them, if anyone calls me Francis...I'll kill them!
Ah, yet another Bill Murray fan. :)

[CMJ]

Originally posted by Jedieb
Ah, yet another Bill Murray fan. :)

We're all very different people. We're not Watusi, we're not Spartans, we're Americans. With a capital "A", huh? And you know what that means? Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.

;)

[Jedieb]

"Come on! It's Czechoslovakia! It's like going to Wisconsin! We zip in, we zip out!"

[CMJ]

Now, are either of you homosexuals?
> You mean like flaming? Or part time?
Well, it's a question we have to ask of all our new recruits.
>>No, we're not homosexual, but we are willing to learn.


:lol :lol

God, I love that movie.

[Jedieb]

:lol
My most used Stripes quote. I use it whenever the wife;
leaves me with the kids
storms out of the room because I refuse to get up off the couch
or leaves the kitchen without fixing me a sandwich

"You can't leave. All the plants will die!"

[CMJ]

I love that one too...that damn dress and pizza. He's such a loser, it's great. :smokin

This is probably my favorite Murray speech ever.


Chicks dig me, because I rarely wear underwear and when I do it's usually something unusual. But now I know why I have always lost women to guys like you.

I mean, it's not just the uniform. It's the stories that you tell. So much fun and imagination.....Lee Harvey, YOU are a MADMAN. When you stole that cow, and your friend tried to make it with the cow. I want to party with you, cowboy. If the two of us together, *forget* it...

I'm gonna go out on a limb here. I'm gonna volunteer my leadership to this platoon. An army without leaders is like a foot without a big toe and Sergeant Hulka is always gonna be here to be that big toe for us. I think that we owe a big round of applause to our newest, bestest buddy, and big toe... Sergeant Hulka.

:lol :lol :lol

[Jedieb]

The big toe! :lol

[jjwr]

LOL...I really need to see that movie again, some great quotes guys :)