I finally caught up with Michael Moore’s…you know, I’m not sure that “documentary” is the right word since Moore’s bias is so clear. Maybe “fucumentary” might be more appropriate.
It’s a staggering piece of work. Even with the understanding that Moore is out to get Bush, nevertheless the most dámņìņg moments come from simple facts: The refusal of a single Senator to join with the Black caucus in protesting the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida; the entanglement of Bush family business interests with bin Laden and Saudi Arabia business interests; the contradictory statements of Bush’s own people (their assurances in early 2000 that Saddam is not a threat as opposed to their later proclamations that he is); the extended, agonizing, deer-in-the-headlights look on Bush’s face during seven minutes of non-action at a Florida Kindergarten; the children in Iraq post bombing, with arms blown off, legs blown off…a little boy screaming as medics desperately try to sew pieces of his face together. An elderly Iraqi woman screaming that God has foresaken them, that her house and all her neighbor’s houses were destroyed, that she’s been to five funerals in the previous week.
Everyone of voting age should see this film.
PAD
• 
Posted by Michael Brunner:
“1) When Andrew Card informed the pResident about the second plane, He immediately stepped away without waiting to see if he would receive any instructions.”
I imagine the conversation was something as simple as ‘a second plane hit the WTC, we’re under attack, we’ll be moving out in a few minutes’.
“2) Where was the Secret Service? As soon as it was believed that America was under attack, they should have been there to remove Bush, wether he wanted to go or not.”
And they did, when it was deemed safe to move. What would be the use of rushing out into the open (from a safe location) until you knew it was safe?
“3) The Secret Service didn’t need time to clear a route to the airport. This is done in advance. When Reagan was shot, when Ford was shot at, the Secret Service IMMEDIATELY removed them from the scene & got them to the hospital & Air Force One, respectively.”
When the roads are cleared, they are reopened immediately after the President passes thru. They are sitll kept under constant supervision, but are reopened. And as you said. Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot. Totally different situations.
‘JeffGillmer, please clarify:
You said “Bush was in a safe and secure location …”, yet when Bush finally did return to AF1, he went darting all across the country because “AF1 was a target”. How is it that on the ground in a single, well known & publicised location he’s safe, but in the air & moving around he’s in danger? If the school was a safe & secure location, and Air Force 1 was a target, then why move Bush from the safe area to a dangerous one?’
AF1 was a target at ANDREWS AFB. Same with the White House, and the Capitol. In the air, AF1 is about as safe as you can get. And as I said earlier, that area in Florida was already on a hightened state of security because the President was there.
I have a few thoughts:
The focus on the 7 minutes Bush supposedly sat on his hands and did nothing is absurd. And it is characteristic of reading into something what you want to see. A true leader allows those under him to do their job. It is very easy with hindsight to look back and criticize. The reality is, this was not news of a nuclear attack. In fact, it was news of something so outside the realm of possibility at the time (Tom Clancy not withstanding) that it would have been difficult to know what to tell the president. NO warning had been given. NO statement had been made. There was simply a crash of an airplane, then another. To criticize his reaction at the time is only possible with what we know now.
I find it interesting that few have pointed out that some serious LIBERAL commentators have found problems with the so called “facts” in Moore’s film. (Just one example comes from that “bastion” of conservatism, Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek ). I heard just as many loose allegations based on association about Bill Clinton. Those are not proven facts. The media has NOT been giving Bush a free pass on this, there just is not any credible evidence (as was the case with the wild allegations about Bill Clinton running drugs while the governor of Arkansas).
Bottom line, I doubt many will be persuaded either way by this film. But it is sad that those who hate Bush as so quick to accept half truths. It may make it easier to hate Bush, but that is about as far as it will go. Your unwillingness to engage in a debate based on reality will only come back to haunt you.
Jim in Iowa
I went to see this movie which should have just been a television “news” special ( a la an extended version of say….48 Hours)….and my girlfriend, who dragged me there just to see what all the fuss is about, found it to be just completely hilarious that anyone would/could walk in and actually take this thing at face value and not say to themselves: god dámņ does this man have an agenda. We both left knowing Michael Moore’s true talent lies in splicing numerous videos in an attempt to make something incoherent look coherent. Whether democrat or republican, the only thing made acutely aware to everyone in the theatre, was something thats been shown many many times before, despite Michael Moore acting like he is revealing this: George Bush COMES ACROSS as a horrible speaker and an idiot. (And no, Im not a liberal, and yes, I voted for him, and will again)
I also learned a valuable lesson. When my girlfriend wants to see a movie for some other reason than she really wants to see it, it will be a complete waste of my money (Like the time she made me go see Britney Spears Crossroads because it would “be worth a few laughs”)
Mike
I haven’t seen the film yet — was out of town for a wedding and a baby shower (no, not for the same couple) — so as a result can’t comment much on the substance of the film yet.
I will, however, say this:
Quite a few people are coming out of the film with new opinions. (And no, I’m not just taking Moore’s word for this.) This isn’t simply reinforcing old viewpoints, though I’m sure it’s doing plenty of that as well.
No documentary that’s already made 3X the money of any documentary in history is doing so only by reinforcing viewpoints. I think this film is going to have an impact (the fact that it’s selling out near military bases in so-called “red state” areas seems testament enough to that), and as such I think the Bush team has got to be sweating a bit. As with so many other things political, the perception has a way of becoming the reality. That’s not necessarily a good thing, but it’s part of life — and if just this f***ing once the perceptions tend to skew things in a way that’s closer to my liking, I’ll just have to live with that and do penance later.
And Mike — while it’s legitimate to say that Bush merely comes across as an idiot rather than actually being one, it’s quite silly to say he simply “comes across” as a horrible speaker. Public perception is how speakers are judged.
Just a thought.
TWL
Dammit, I’d really like that e-mail address above to not be showing. Maybe this tweak will help…
TWL
I do think every American voter, and some non-Americans, need to see this film. If for no other reason than to remember the importance and impact of voting. Or NOT voting. When Bush got elected nearly 4 years ago (which due to an unfortunate moving/registration SNAFU, I was unable to vote) I said “oh well, how much damage can he do in 4 years?”
Never again will I ask such rhetorical questions.
But I fear the movie will sway very few. Moore’s propensity for spinning the truth will damage his credibility with some. Supporters of Bush will be unmoved by what they will see as a “childish and unsubstantiated attack on a good man.” And people who have already decided that they’ve had enough of a false government will continue to hope for a democratic revolution come next Fall.
JeffGillmer: I’d suggest you check up on secret service emergency procedures. The SS do not let the President enter any area, room, county, or state without having exit routes planned and executable 5 different ways to Sunday. If a crisis or emergency arises, without waiting for the President to say “boo” they have the man pinned to the floorboards of a bullet-proof limo speeding away. The only time the SS wait for paths to clear is for normal motorcades, and they do so not out of security interests but out a desire to lesson the impact placed on local traffic. Doubt me all you want, but I’ve got close on 10 years service with various Federal Agencies.
And as to the President sitting for 7 minutes during an attack, while his Agencies did their jobs. I work for the FAA. We needed Executive level direction during this crisis. While managers and directors tried to determine what exactly was occuring, first line traffic controllers did their best to do their jobs. Our airline fleet could have been grounded much earlier had the White House issued a directive after the first plane struck. Which may have provided those scrambled fighters (which, by the way, thanks to poor executive direction were headed in the wrong direction from New York) enough time to prevent the second plane from striking.
If ever there was a time for the President to take Executive control of a situation, it was the morning of September 11, 2001. Instead, our Chief Executive was reading stories to children.
“If ever there was a time for the President to take Executive control of a situation, it was the morning of September 11, 2001. Instead, our Chief Executive was reading stories to children. “
Oh give me a break. I don’t care who was President, Clinton, Gore, Bush, or Kerry would all have been caught off guard. Yes, 7 minutes is a long time when a response is needed. But for the moment forget it was George Bush (the presumed idiot). This was not a missle attack. This was not a chemical attack. This was not a bomb like in Oklahoma. This was a commerical jet flown into a building. There had been no threat or warning. In hind sight we can see things clearly, but NO ONE, Republican or Democrat, could ever have been fully ready for such a circumstance.
I know I am in the minority in this forum, but I do shudder to think what would have happened if Gore had been in office. He was part of an administration that had suffered attack after attack with virtually no response. I am convinced that Bush did a far better job than Gore over the last 4 years. Could he have done better? Of course, you can always look back and see mistakes.
So go on and keep underestimating Bush (as my Republican friends did with Clinton). I strongly believe come November he will be reelected. And that will be far better for this country than for Kerry (who now has even tried to have it both ways on abortion!) to be in charge.
Jim in Iowa
I am currently researching the history of film propaganda for a university thesis. A key text which I have just finished reading is ” The Power of Film Propaganda – Myth or Reality “. In this very scholarly work, Nicholas Reeves studies the effect and general popualrity of five key movements in film propaganda.
They are – British documentary films of WW1, the early Soviet cinema, the Nazi era films, British WW2 films, and Italian Neo-realsim films from 1945 -50.
He draws some interesting conclusions – but the most important for this discussion is his conclusion that film propaganda does not work – UNLESS the audience is already predisposed to accept the view the film-maker puts forward.
Thus
(1) Battleship Potemkin was a failure within the Soviet Union – but a big smash with audiences in Germany and was banned in Britain from general distribution.
(2) Whilst ” The Jew Suss ” was a big hit in Germany the follow up, ” The Eternal Jew ” was a major flop – both were avowedly anti-semitic but the first wrapped it up in a romantic/historical story that may actually have been the major drawing point – the anti-semitic material was ignored by the audience ( although I suspect that Reeves ignores the more likley fact that it percolated into their subconciousness )
(3) Most audiences accept propaganda if it reinforces their own self-view but are very resistant to having their emotions/reason manipulated – they tend to be more sophisticated than the film makers realise
(4) most regimes , democratic or authoritarian, invest a great deal in filmic propaganda to little return .
I would thus accept that, as many have said, few are likely to have their views changed by this, or any, film ( I haven’t seen it myself – being British I get it later than you chaps ). Whether Mr Moore is attempting to do this is for you to decide or him to answer – but the evidence suggests that even if this were his aim – he probably won’t succeed. People are too smart for that.
Thankfully
warmest regards
dave
It wasn’t the President that was under attack. It was New York. The first crash was thought to be an accident by everybody. Washington and Pennsylvania came later. If there was a direct threat towards the President, they would have reacted differently. Such as the example of “pinning the man pinned to the floorboards of a bullet-proof limo speeding away”. See, you’ve made my point. He let the Secret Service do their job to see to his safety. When it was determined that the US was unter attack, the Secret Service moved into action to close the roads so the President could travel to AF1 safely.
From Kingbobb”
“Our airline fleet could have been grounded much earlier had the White House issued a directive after the first plane struck. Which may have provided those scrambled fighters (which, by the way, thanks to poor executive direction were headed in the wrong direction from New York) enough time to prevent the second plane from striking.”
So, your saying that any airplane crash should cause all commericial and private airplanes to be immediately grounded, and for fighters to be scrambled?
Um…yeah. Right. Maybe now AFTER 9/11, but this certainly wasn’t the way things were beforehand.
“Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn’t make decisions. He does what he’s told to do. “
How you can square the title “Commander in Chief” with “He does what he’s told to do,” I really can’t fathom. It’s just incomprehensible to me that anyone could be that much of a Bush apologist.
For what it’s worth, however, Moore says almost exactly that. “With no one to tell him what to do, Bush simply sat there.” Interestingly, moans of “Oh my God” sounded throughout the theater at the inaction of the one man who should be taking action.
And keep in mind: The first plane hit BEFORE he wallked into the classroom. He decided to proceed with the photo-op anyway. Talk about priorities being out of whack.
“That wasn’t the look of a total moron. That was the same look alot of people had on 9/11 when they started to realize just what the hëll was happening. “
The flip response to that, of course, is, “Why couldn’t it have been both?” Moore claims he went easy on Bush; that watching the blank stare for seven solid minutes would be agonizing for viewers.
I do not deny that I likely had a similar dumbfounded expression on my face when I realized what was happening. It lasted about ten seconds. Then I grabbed the phone and I was calling everyone I knew. I took every action at my disposal.
“If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die. Or if he would have jumped up and acted like Harrison Ford style president, there would have been the complaints that he’s a Loose Cannon Cowboy, or something like that. “
Because of course if it had been Gore sitting there for seven solid minutes, the right wouldn’t remotely have taken the opportunity to claim it was a sign of indecision, confusion, and outright fear. Heavens no. Conservatives have a long and illustrious history of giving liberal presidents every latitude and the benefit of every doubt.
I mean, here’s a wacky thought. If I’m in Bush’s place, I’m thinking, “We’re under attack. My presence here is a publicized photo op. Which means that whoever is attacking us may well know where I am, which means that every single person in this school is in danger.” I instantly get up, smile to the children, tell them I have to leave, immediately go to the principal and work out some sort of fast plan to send the kids home while getting myself the hëll out of the area just in case there’s a frickin’ plane heading on a collision course for the school.
I don’t sit there.
For.
Seven.
Long.
Minutes.
Waiting.
For.
Someone.
To.
Tell.
Me.
What.
To.
Do.
PAD
Oops. Sorry for the bad job of my cut and paste job in the post above. Proofread…always proofread before hitting send.
“Of course, you can always look back and see mistakes. “
See, whereas I think the job of a president is to be able to look FORWARD and see mistakes…and thus not make them.
For instance, I was never thrilled with Bush the First, but I never for a moment thought he was a dim bulb. And Bush the First explained, in detail, in his book, why he did not charge into Baghdad and go after Saddam. All the reasons he gave, all the problems he foresaw with such an endeavor, are exactly what we ran smack bam into in the assault sponsored by Bush the Second and his neocons.
Perehaps Bush the Second never read daddy’s book.
PAD
“I know I am in the minority in this forum, but I do shudder to think what would have happened if Gore had been in office. He was part of an administration that had suffered attack after attack with virtually no response. I am convinced that Bush did a far better job than Gore over the last 4 years.”
The fact that you are convinced of that renders you not only the minority in this forum but, very soon if not already, the minority in this country.
What would have happened if Gore had been in office? Taking a guess, we would have gone into Afghanistan with far more troops than we did because Gore wouldn’t have needed to keep over 100,000 troops in reserve for an irrelevant attack on Iraq. He might well have gotten bin Laden, who killed over 3000 Americans, as opposed to getting Saddam, who didn’t.
And if Gore HAD, for some demented reason, wanted to attack Iraq, the same conservative voices currently supporting Bush would have been citing every pernicious motive he could have for doing so.
PAD
PAD:
‘How you can square the title “Commander in Chief” with “He does what he’s told to do,” I really can’t fathom. It’s just incomprehensible to me that anyone could be that much of a Bush apologist.’
Is it incomprehensible to realize that Bush waiting there for the Secret Service to move him to a different location is not the same as making decisions about what to do about the crisis.
PAD says he waited about 10 seconds before he started calling people. Wow. If you had a staff of people working for you, you wouldn’t have needed to either. He didn’t to leap up and spring into action. He needed to let his staff do their jobs, be it secure the route to the airport or to gather information about the attacks. The President had just a little more to do than calling friends, and to make the decisions he had to have the facts, and those take a little time to gather.
If he would have jumped up, and ordered the Secret Service to get into the cars NOW and head towards the airport before closing off the roads, it probably would have taken longer to get where he needed to be.
As for if Gore was sitting there, I would feel the same way. I would be more worried about Gore’s after the fact actions, but not about sitting there in the classroom.
With all due respect, PAD, I still say hindsight is 20/20. To wait for information is not the same as waiting to be told what to do. The truth is, we don’t know. If someone assumes Bush is a puppet, then of course he was sitting there waiting to be told what to do. If one assumes Bush is human, then I am more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
We are talking 7 minutes. Not 7 hours. Not even one hour. Seven minutes to assess exactly how bad the situation really was. NO ONE KNEW. This is a reflection on the FAA, FBI, CIA, etc., more than on Bush. (And as he was only in office 8 months, he cannot bear ALL the blame for the sorry state they were in at the time.)
The frustrating thing is this: Those 7 minutes are only useful as a metaphor for how Moore wants to portray Bush. The reality is, NOTHING would have changed if Bush had done as you described. And unless you want to assume he is an idiot, it also does not say anything more than he was human and perhaps wanted to find out what was going on. And he gave time to do so.
I would have a small amount of respect for Moore if he had truly talked about things that mattered, like the 7 years under Clinton when atttacks occurred and little was done about it. I don’t put all of the blame on Clinton, but I do think he played a very key role in what led to 9-11.
This whole discussion illustrates how Moore is able to take a non-pivotal event and transform it into something else. How he can use half truths and “guilt by association” rather than true fact finding. Fortunately, I do believe the truth will become clear over time. For both sides (since Moore does occasionally ask a good question, even if he does a poor job providing true hard facts).
Jim in Iowa
“So go on and keep underestimating Bush (as my Republican friends did with Clinton). I strongly believe come November he will be reelected. “
Underestimating Bush isn’t the problem. It’s overestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
PAD
“What would have happened if Gore had been in office? Taking a guess, we would have gone into Afghanistan with far more troops than we did because Gore wouldn’t have needed to keep over 100,000 troops in reserve for an irrelevant attack on Iraq. He might well have gotten bin Laden, who killed over 3000 Americans, as opposed to getting Saddam, who didn’t.”
I know you are being serious, but I have to laugh. I do not believe Gore would have tackled Afghanistan. Nor do I believe he would have been as effective as Bush.
But using your thesis that a president looks ahead, Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans. You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so? No president can ever forsee everything. But I do believe one thing is true: Bush invaded Iraq because he truly believed it was a threat, not for any personal or financial gain. He may have been wrong (I don’t think so), but he did it based on a belief he was protecting us from another 9-11.
Jim in Iowa
I would have a small amount of respect for Moore if he had truly talked about things that mattered, like the 7 years under Clinton when atttacks [sic] occurred and little was done about it. I don’t put all of the blame on Clinton, but I do think he played a very key role in what led to 9-11.
So Bush’s “7 minutes” are off limits for criticism, but Clinton’s “7 years” are open season? Nice to see you’re being even-handed about this.
In the spirit of discussion, however … Clinton did quite a bit. Bin Laden’s assets were frozen when it was clear some of the attacks could be traced to him. Clinton was working with other countries (oh, wait, that’s a bad thing now) to isolate and capture him. Let’s also not forget that the WTC bombers in ’93 were in fact captured and tried under his watch.
Seems to me he dealt with each threat as it came. He didn’t decide that the U.S. had the divine right to smack down anyone we thought might possibly one day kinda sorta present us with a problem. And frankly, the more people I find who think that’s what America should be doing, the more I think this electorate’s ethics and mine do not mix.
I do not believe Gore would have tackled Afghanistan. Nor do I believe he would have been as effective as Bush.
On what grounds? What makes you think ANY president would have avoided going into Afghanistan after 9/11? If you have any answer that doesn’t involve right-wing assumptions that anything Clinton-Gore is de facto incorrect, I’d be interested to hear it.
But using your thesis that a president looks ahead, Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans.
Based on zero evidence, given that (1) Saddam had no significant ties to al-Qaeda and data showed no evidence that said status was going to change, and (2) Saddam hadn’t been a threat to “thousands of Americans” in over a decade. He was penned in, and his armed forces (rather clearly in hindsight) were perhaps a mild threat to the region and no threat to us.
You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so?
How about everyone who read the brief on bin Laden a month earlier? Y’know, the one which said he was clearly gearing up for a major strike and which said he was “determined to strike inside the U.S.”?
The available evidence at this point suggests that invading Iraq did nothing to protect us from another 9/11. It further suggests that Bush’s claims of doing so were either (a) hopelessly ignorant and naive, or (b) completely misleading. Reasonable people can of course disagree on which of those two options is more likely, but if the choice is maliciousness or incompetence, either way I want the man out of office yesterday.
TWL
JeffGillmer:
“What would be the use of rushing out into the open (from a safe location) until you knew it was safe” – The country is under attack, the attackers are using planes as missles, and the Presidents location is well known. The location (the school) is no longer safe because the school could come under attack at any moment.
“When the roads are cleared, they are reopened immediately after the President passes thru. They are sitll kept under constant supervision, but are reopened. And as you said. Ford was shot at, Reagan was shot. Totally different situations” – Yes, they are supervised, so they can be immediately reopened in the event of an emergency, wether it is the President, or the nation that has come into danger. And yes, they are different situations, but the reaction is the same – get the president out of the area & to a place of safety. The Secret Service can reclose the streets just as quickly if the president is shor, or if there is another reason to quickly remove him.
“AF1 was a target at ANDREWS AFB” – AF1 was in Florida, only 4 miles away, it wasn’t at Andrews.
JeffGillmer: Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn’t make decisions. He does what he’s told to do.
Luigi Novi: Um, excuse me? The President of the United States does what he
Here’s the thing that alarms me the most about the whole “7 minute” incident. That it happened at all is an indication of the total lack of preparedness the Bush administration took with it into office.
I’ve copied section 2 from the US Constitution (from Cornell’s web site) here:
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Notice that the very first power granted to the office of the President is Commander in Cheif. I take that to mean that he is the one single person in charge of the national military, responsible for defending the interests of the country at home and abroad.
Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center, he opted to continue with a photo op rather than postpone it long enough to determine whether the national security of the country was threatened.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I work for the FAA. Let me tell you, if a jetliner crashes into a skyscraper, chances are, it’s not an accident. Think about the last time you saw a plane flying close to a city skyline. I’ll bet it was 9/11. Because the FAA doesn’t allow jetliners to get close to large building. And for those cities that do have downtown airstrips, the approaches are very tightly controlled and monitored to prevent just such an accident from occuring.
I’ve checked the US Constitution pretty carefully recently, and no where do I see in the listing of the powers of the Office of the President “He shall, from time to time, sit before school children reading stories.” I do see that he is the Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief. And that man, faced with a national crisis, decided that his time was better spent in front of cameras, rather then being immediately available to respond to a developing attack on our country.
Could it just have been an accident? Sure it could have. So tell me what the harm would it have been for him to take an hour and confirm it?
Granted, we’ll never know if our military could have scrambled in time to save the second tower, or the people in the Pentagon when it was struck. We’ll never know, because our President (and I’ll admit, myself too) were so secure in the illusion of security that we held about ourselves, that he allowed himself or his aides to write off an attack as an accident. The difference with me (and millions of others) holding on to that illusion is that it’s NOT OUR JOB to ensure the safety and security of the nation. We can all get passes for thinking the best. Our CinC needs to be thinking the worst, and be prepared to respond.
And yes, in any circumstance, a single plane crash, coupled with a threat that other planes have been compromised, would be enough to ground our entire fleet. Do you want to be the one tell hundreds or thousands of grieving families that thier loss was caused becuase you didn’t want to cost the airlines some money?
If you check the reports of the various agencies from that morning, you’d see the chaos that the air traffic controllers and FAA were experiencing. FAA’s mission is to manage a safe, effecient national aviation system. Where planes DO WHAT YOU TELL THEM, and don’t have pilots that only know how to fly and crash. National security is not and was not part of the controllers’ training. If the President, after the first strike, had been thinking like a CinC, he might have called FAA, found out what was going on, and issued some orders. He didn’t. Cheny did…later. It was Cheney who issued the order that authorized the use of lethal force on other rogue jetliners, not Bush. I don’t have the timelines in front of me, but my recollection is that the White House/Bush administration didn’t check with the FAA until after the third plane had struck the Pentagon (I may be wrong on that, feel free to fact-check for me, please).
Mike:
>I also learned a valuable lesson. When my girlfriend wants to see a movie for some other reason than she really wants to see it, it will be a complete waste of my money (Like the time she made me go see Britney Spears Crossroads because it would “be worth a few laughs”)
Slow learner, are ya? 😉
Posted by: Tim Lynch “So Bush’s “7 minutes” are off limits for criticism, but Clinton’s “7 years” are open season? Nice to see you’re being even-handed about this.”
Nice try, but there is a huge difference between the two. For the sake of argument, let’ say Bush froze and was clueless for 7 minutes. It sure didn’t take him 7 years to respond. I am not saying Bush’s 7 minutes are off limits — I am saying let’s focus on what really matters. What exactly changed because of those 7 minutes?
My point is this: to focus on the 7 minutes is to focus on the trivial. Let’s talk about the 8 months Bush was in office. Let us ALSO talk about the 8 years Clinton was in office.
And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) — and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers. Clinton treated an international terroist threat as a domestic criminal case. Yes, they convicted some who were involved, but nothing happened to deal with the real entity behind it? To say otherwise is to ignore the bombing of our embassy, the attack on our warship, etc.
I wish Bush had done more. But anyone who thinks he could have come into Washington and by February 1 put a plan into action doesn’t understand politics. Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the Florida election, one thing is true: The court battle significantly delayed the process of Bush puting his staff in place. In addition, the resulting antagonism from the Democrats severely slowed down their processing of Bush appointees. That is established fact. Clinton could have left a detailed plan (and the fact is he did NOT), it would not have mattered. This was one of the roughest transitions of power in recent history. So while I do think Bush and his team missed some details, it was not like they were sitting around doing nothing. Please note: This is not blaming Democrats for 9/11. If the roles were reversed, things would have been similar. This is simply stating that Bush is not a dictator and could not just come in and take on terrorism. The hearings showed that one of the first actions taken by his staff when he did get in office was to talk about terrorism — not Iraq.
Bottom line: I do not believe Bush was perfect, but neither is he solely to blame. He came into the game at the top of the ninth inning with the bases loaded. Do I still wish he had struck out Bin Laden rather than allowing him a grand slam homerun? Of course! But to blame Bush for poor leadership without honestly looking at the whole picture is to invite it to happen all over again. Which is why I thank God every day that Bush is in office right now, and why I pray he will be reelected for another 4 years. I don’t think Kerry (or Clinton, for that matter) has any intention to hurt the country. But I do think he will make far worse mistakes than Bush would do. Bush is a true leader. You can love or hate him, but at least you know where he is going and why. That is why Michael Moore and others resort to attacking his character wih distortions and half truths. But I believe time will tell the truth.
Jim in Iowa
Weighing in on the 7 minutes of nonreaction.I have seen the clip on the internet and it pìššëd me off.I was stunned that he sat there reading a book to kids when god knows what was going on in the skies over a country he is charge of protecting.
Sorry ,letting others “handle things” is not the right answer.I believe the Commander in Chief
should be the most well informed,take charge mofo
on the planet.This means reading newspapers ,asking questions and getting more than just a one page reader’s digest version of a potential national security threat.This also means he should have gotten off his ÃSS ,excused himself and been in immediate conference with his people.More to the point secure the children and the area if possible and get moving ,not be a sitting target.If memory serves on that day ,no one knew how many planes were doing suicide runs or if this was the extent of what was to come ,so sitting there was the last thing he should have done.Bottom line I hold the President to a high standard when it comes to protecting the american people,and this clearly was below standard performance in my opinion
If there’s one thing the members of the PAD board never get tired of, it’s these impossible to argue with alternate scenarios–“If Al Gore had been reading to those kids he would have said something inspirational.” “If John McCain had been reading to those kids he would have shot those planes out of the sky with a pearl handled revolver.” “If Bill Clinton had been reading to those kids he would have felt up the teaching assistant.” That sort of thing.
I blame the What If? series.
JW in Iowa – wow. You really believe that stuff, don’t you. I mean, you really believe George W. Bush is a good leader.
You seem like an intelligent person, so this amazes me. I’ve seen many people defend him by saying they are being loyal to their party, and that he’s backed by smart people as advisers. And I’ve seen plenty of uneducated people say silly things like, “He’s a good ‘old boy who’d go fishin’ with ya!” when he wouldn’t even stoop to speak to them without a photo-op.
But to actually see an educated, well spoken person defend him and call him a good leader.
Bravo to you on your convictions.
I hold none of the same, believe that things would be better had Gore been in the White House, and hope like crazy that Kerry wins, but wish you and yours the best.
-Joe
Look at how much they have (or better put, “seemed to have”) allowed the republicans to get away with.
Please. Democrats have been saying all sorts of things, and the best they get in response is that they’re traitors, unpatriotic, and threatening our national security.
Bush going into Iraq was precisely to prevent Sadaam from killing (or actively helping someone kill) thousands of Americans.
And in the meantime, we KNOW that bin Laden is preparing to do exactly that. AGAIN.
Yet, he’s not as important as Saddam?
Please, for gods sakes, somebody get Bush’s priorities in order. Otherwise, there will be another 9/11, bin Laden will be behind it, and we’ll be wondering why it happened again.
Joe,
Yes, I am intelligent and I do believe he is a good leader. Having lived in Texas for 16 years before Iowa, I did not meet Bush personally, but I have 3 close friends who have. There are many who are more intelligent than Bush. There are many who could have insured their re-election. But there are two things my friends have seen with Bush: He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others. He is not perfect, and he is not as far thinking as many, but he is a bull dog. When he makes a commitment, he sees it through. He is loyal to those who are loyal to him. And so those close to him follow. And those who don’t like him don’t, because he does have core convictions.
I don’t agree with him on some things and believe it is appropriate to hold him accountable. But he can be a good leader and still be a flawed human at the same time.
Jim in Iowa
Posted by: Craig J. Ries “Please, for gods sakes, somebody get Bush’s priorities in order. Otherwise, there will be another 9/11, bin Laden will be behind it, and we’ll be wondering why it happened again.”
I must disagree. We have not ignored Bin Laden. It is a valid question whether we could have done more to get Bin Laden. But I am certain Bush has a strong desire to get Bin Laden. His priorities, though, were focused on a bigger picture. It was to also prevent Sadaam from helping support a similar attack, and to change the landscape of the Middle East.
Was this the right approach? It was definitely a bold approach, one that has changed the Middle East for years. Clearly the chapter is not done. It is possible it could turn out to make things worse. But I think there is a strong possibility still that 20 years from now, this could be the key event that stemmed the tide of militant islamic terrorism.
The reality is that the jury is still out. Even another “9-11” would not settle the matter, because there are too many out there who want to harm the United States. I believe Bush has the right priority. He has taken a bold approach to accomplish it. But the “reserved” approach of the last 8 years clearly did not stop the attacks. I think this has a much greater chance to suceed.
Jim in Iowa
Jim in Iowa:
>But there are two things my friends have seen with Bush: He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others. He is not perfect, and he is not as far thinking as many, but he is a bull dog. When he makes a commitment, he sees it through. He is loyal to those who are loyal to him. And so those close to him follow. And those who don’t like him don’t, because he does have core convictions.
You call an unwillingness to reconsider one’s position despite contrary evidence and nearly an entire world disagreeing with you a positive character trait?
I have no problem with having strong convictions, but this mad dog… oops, “bull dog” mentality is what has this country as f’d up as it currently is. The stubborn, childish tantrumming, deception of the public and dismissal of an entire world makes me wonder how truly he is “acting for the good of others”.
Me:
“So Bush’s “7 minutes” are off limits for criticism, but Clinton’s “7 years” are open season? Nice to see you’re being even-handed about this.”
JDubya:
Nice try, but there is a huge difference between the two. For the sake of argument, let’ say Bush froze and was clueless for 7 minutes. It sure didn’t take him 7 years to respond.
Nor did it take Clinton 7 years to respond to a much smaller provocation. That’s kinda my point. You’re the one who’s focusing on the 7 minutes while claiming it doesn’t matter.
I am not saying Bush’s 7 minutes are off limits — I am saying let’s focus on what really matters. What exactly changed because of those 7 minutes?
In reality — we’ll never know. One possibility, of course, is that planes would have scrambled faster and kill orders given sooner — but obviously that’s just speculation.
In terms of “what would it change”, you’re right — the 7 minutes don’t matter much. They’re illustrative of Bush’s general approach to … well, pretty much everything … but the practical impact may be minimal. I’d like to hear from “kingbobb” on that subject, actually — as someone who works for the FAA, his opinion strikes me as one far more relevant than yours or mine.
I’ll be happy to drop the 7 minutes, so long as we deal FAIRLY with the months and years prior to 9/11.
And what exactly did Clinton do? He lobed a few cruise missles, but refused Bin Laden when he was virtually handed him on a silver platter (sp?) — and that was after the FIRST attack on the Twin Towers.
To put it mildly, that “fact” is very much in dispute. Richard Clarke (a lifelong Republican who worked for presidents on both sides of the aisle) has been quoted as saying that the CIA was authorized in the mid-1990s to go get bin Laden, that Clinton was enthusiastic about doing such, but that the CIA held back for various reasons. He’s also been quoted as saying that lots of orders were issued saying in effect “go get them.”
(Source: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030804fa_fact if you want to look online, though obviously his book also contains the claims.)
Now let’s turn the question around: What did Bush do? You say that it was early in his term and the transition was complicated by the whole election mess. I’ll certainly grant that, but it’s not a full answer.
What concrete things did the Bush team actually do about terrorism in the months leading up to 9/11? They had warning — hëll, according to your arguments they had eight years of warnings, and the last few months of them were growing more looming and more specific.
So what did they do?
Whether you agree or disagree with the outcome of the Florida election, one thing is true: The court battle significantly delayed the process of Bush puting his staff in place. In addition, the resulting antagonism from the Democrats severely slowed down their processing of Bush appointees.
“Antagonism from the Democrats.” The GOP controlled both houses of Congress until they pìššëd øff Jim Jeffords and goaded him into jumping ship. They confirmed every Cabinet member he nominated — even Ashcroft, for which several of them have a date to burn in hëll. Exactly what form did this so-called “antagonism” take?
So while I do think Bush and his team missed some details, it was not like they were sitting around doing nothing.
I believe the old Usenet response here is “Post proof or retract.” Can you point to things they actually did rather than simply posting generalities and blaming Clinton’s lack of response?
This is simply stating that Bush is not a dictator and could not just come in and take on terrorism. The hearings showed that one of the first actions taken by his staff when he did get in office was to talk about terrorism — not Iraq.
Huh? They showed nothing of the kind — if anything, they showed much more of an emphasis on Iraq. What part of the hearings were you reading and/or listening to?
How many meetings were there with terrorism as a focus during those months, Jim? How many planning sessions? How many new directives were given? By whom? How many times were experts in the region spoken to?
For full credit, please compare and contrast with how many meetings and discussions took place about missile defense, about Saddam, or about tax cuts.
But to blame Bush for poor leadership without honestly looking at the whole picture is to invite it to happen all over again.
I agree. Unfortunately, the Bush team doesn’t — at least, not in the same way.
Let’s recall that the administration opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission in the first place — surely it was their job to “look at the whole picture”, as you put it. Why would they do that?
Which is why I thank God every day that Bush is in office right now, and why I pray he will be reelected for another 4 years.
Ah, yes. God. The same one that “instructed” Bush to wage eternal war?
“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”
— Bush, in a meeting with the Palestinian Authority
[One source, among others:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer%5D
The same God that Gen. William Boykin quotes as the reason (a) he knew we’d win a war against Muslims, and (b) the instrument by which Bush was installed in office?
I respect your hope that Bush wins and your faith in God — but given that Bush’s position is that God’s a Republican, you’ll have to forgive me if I share neither.
Bush is a true leader. You can love or hate him, but at least you know where he is going and why.
Yes — because he persists in treating the entire world stage as a simple black-and-white issue.
It’s not. No one with any background in international relations would ever dream of thinking everything is this simple. Bush does, or at least acts as if he does.
And that, quite frankly, scares the crap out of me every day he’s in office.
I don’t think your criteria for leadership are sufficient. I think one must be able to acknowledge changes in circumstance and adjust accordingly. Yes, sometimes that means you have to change your mind — but better someone who’s willing to do so when events warrant it than someone who has a one-size-fits-all ideology.
Like Joe above, I respect your convictions — I honestly do. I cannot, however, in good conscience share them.
TWL
>”God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”
— Bush, in a meeting with the Palestinian Authority
Waittaminnnnnnnute… I didn’t vote for god! How long has he been pulling the strings behind this administration?
Although, there is a helluva passing of the buck. Who’s going to tell god he is wrong?
Wanna see a neat “Separated At Birth?”?
Take a look at http://www.ippnw.ch/images/moore.jpg.
Then go to http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0807126063.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
JeffGillmer: Bush did EXACTLY what he was supposed to do. In a time of immediate crisis like that, he doesn’t make decisions. He does what he’s told to do.
Luigi Novi: Um, excuse me? The President of the United States does what he
JeffGillmer: I find it amazing that so many people on the “left” seem to see something wrong with the way he acted in the classroom. If he had rushed up to leave, there would have been complaints about his abandoning the kids and leaving them there to die.
Luigi Novi: What are you talking about? What does leaving the classroom have to do with the kids dying? Dying from what? Shock of meeting the President and then seeing him leave? How leaving the classroom cause the kids to die?
JeffGilmer: …I’m saying that’s just one of the complaints that some on the left would have probably used if the President jumped up and rushed out of the room. Since he sat there, folks are complaining about that. It wouldn’t have mattered what he did, partisans on the left would say it was wrong.
You’ve stated perfectly one of the reasons that I dislike Bush. I could see him jumping up and running out of the room as much as simply sitting there. The fact that there are innumerous other options between those two extreme responses says it all. The man works in extremes and sees in extremes. The world is not black and white.
Fred Chamberlain:
“Who’s going to tell god he is wrong?”
I will. Especially if it’s the ‘God’ that speaks only to the person who is charged with leading the most powerful military force on the plant.
…And if it’s the ‘God’ that requires donations.
…And if it’s the ‘God’ that is prayed to by child molesting priests and those who assist in the cover up and the parents of those children that seem to think that money makes it ok.
I would without hesitation say, “God, you are wrong. And, by the way… What does ‘God’ need with a starship?”
My point is that whoever this ‘God’ is that these types worship it’s not the one that has been written about for millenia. They soil (as in ‘underwear’) all the good things that they claim to stand for when they invoke God in this manner.
And the Hëll of it is that I don’t even believe in God, yet I often find myself defending God’s Word. I guess it’s just one of those things.
Salutations,
Mitch
Posted by JW in Iowa at July 6, 2004 05:49 PM
Joe,
“He is motivated by his convictions, not polls, and he is motivated to act for the good of others.”
As long as his convictions reflect the will of the people. More and more I see God being brought into the campaign.
“He is loyal to those who are loyal to him.”
Unfortunately, being our commander in chief, he is also suppose to be loyal to those who did not support him. That’s the nature of the beast. He represents us all.
Haven’t seen the film yet. Hoping to go before Friday. More anxious than ever to see the film.
>>Fred Chamberlain:
>>”Who’s going to tell god he is wrong?”
>I will. Especially if it’s the ‘God’ that speaks only to the person who is charged with leading the most powerful military force on the plant.
>…And if it’s the ‘God’ that requires donations.
>…And if it’s the ‘God’ that is prayed to by child molesting priests and those who assist in the cover up and the parents of those children that seem to think that money makes it ok.
>I would without hesitation say, “God, you are wrong. And, by the way… What does ‘God’ need with a starship?”
>My point is that whoever this ‘God’ is that these types worship it’s not the one that has been written about for millenia. They soil (as in ‘underwear’) all the good things that they claim to stand for when they invoke God in this manner.
>And the Hëll of it is that I don’t even believe in God, yet I often find myself defending God’s Word. I guess it’s just one of those things.
Ðámņ….. guess I really need to work on my sarcasm skills as that attempt was missed completely.
Not completely, Mr. Chamberlain. In fact I caught it quite well. It just made something occur to me. It’s not the quiet ones you need to watch. It’s the ones with power claiming to do God’s work. And, as some of my examples illustrate, it can be a dámņëd scary thing.
Salutations,
Mitch
TWL – You may disagree, but who before 9/11 would have thought Bin Laden could have done so?
-How about everyone who read the brief on bin Laden a month earlier? Y’know, the one which said he was clearly gearing up for a major strike and which said he was “determined to strike inside the U.S.”?
Also, who is most likely to do so? bin Laden has no fixed base of operation. He can strike from anywhere and the world doesn’t have a fixed target to hit back. Hussein has a very fixed base of operation and isn’t stupid enough not to know he’s either going to get blown to bits, or chased out of the country (and thus from his power base) if he tried anything cute.
Luigi – Luigi Novi: Is this any different when it
I saw it yesterday with my daughter, Alixandra…one thing I think no one has mentioned (I haven’t scrolled through all 91 comments, though I read about half of them) is the way Moore presented the events of 9/11…
During these moments of the film Alixandra was buried into my chest, shaking and crying (she was in NYC that day, I was just across from the WTC at Exchange Place in Jersey City, for those in the New York Area and are familiar with the geography), and I was just holding her tight as we were both brought back to those seconds, minutes and hours in a way that no amount of video replays have done since 9/11. And how did Moore achieve this? I don’t want to spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, but I will say that it was the judicious and brilliant use of sound that did it.
This is an important movie, and I agree with PAD, EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY SHOULD SEE IT. I don’t care if you’re for Bush or Kerry, if you’re a hard right-winger or a flaming liberal, if you’re an independent or a neoconservative or a Moderate Republican or a conservataive Democrat or if you’re sitting on the fence, EVERYONE OLD ENOUGH TO VOTE SHOULD/MUST SEE IT….
Then go out and do your own research, read the cheers of the converted and read the diatribes of the angered, go check out Reilly and FOX and CNN and TIME and SALON.COM and Google Michael Moore…and THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!
AND WHEN NOVEMBER 11TH ROLES AROUND, VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!
And if you “don’t believe in voting,” or you “can’t be bothered,” or you’re “too busy,”…well, that’s your right, too…
But talking the talk isn’t the same as walking the walk.
Mindy
My Fahrenheit 9/11 Review
This was a solid movie that I would call half opinion/editorial and half documentary. The O/E comes in the form of voice over form Michael Moor over expertly edited news footage and documents. This is mainly done to connect the dots in a way that presents his views about the Bush administration and their business and Saudi connections. He also goes after Congress, hitting hard on both Republicans and Democrats alike. The Documentary areas of the film puts the human faces on the wars in a way that rarely get shown on the news. When Moor shuts up and you get to see and hear the US solders, Iraqi citizens, and the mother that losses her son in the war, you are hit with the reality of the war. This is the real meat of the film. This is what you do not get to see much of on the evening news. This is the stuff that no amount of violent video games can desensitize you to (and I played a lot of Mortal Kombat and Counter Strike in my day).
If you are not a fan of Bush or the War in Iraq you will absolutely love this film. If you are disillusioned or have given up on politics, this movie may reinvigorate you. If you are pro Bush you need to see this film because you need to have complete knowledge of what you are up against. Unlike all the books that have come out attacking the Bush administration, this movie is extremely entertaining & engaging. The news footage Moor uses may be old news to those of us that were old enough to vote in the last election, but the 18 to 21 year olds that are seeing this film are more likely to be seeing a lot of it for the first time. They are the ones that are most likely to be influenced by the film, and in turn tip the scales of the next election. If you don
Guys, I really hate to take a political discussion and interrupt it with a comics topic, but Newsarama is reporting that Bruce Jones has just signed a two year exclusive deal with DC.
PAD – is there any chance that you’ll be returning to the Hulk full time?
Please?
Oh and in case it wasn’t too obvious, the whole “I hate interrupting politics for comics” thing was sarcasm. I figure it happens the other way all the time. hehe
Kurt:
>Guys, I really hate to take a political discussion and interrupt it with a comics topic, but Newsarama is reporting that Bruce Jones has just signed a two year exclusive deal with DC.
Cool!! Congrats to him. Congrats to me too as I’ll finally have a chance at reading a Hulk story. I haven’t seen Marvel put one out in a few years.
MindyP51:
“THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!! MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!!!!”
Hi, Mindy.
I would suggest that my decision not to see this film at this time is indicative of my ability to think for myself. I think the same could be said for others who have also made that choice.
I regret that your daughter and yourself were that close to events on September 11, 2001. I can only imagine what that must have been like and I feel that my imaginings would STILL come up short.
The thing that really gets to me is that for a while afterward we realized that our petty differences weren’t so important after all. I wonder if that is the deeper loss that we all suffered: That those petty differences became important again after a short time. That our sense of unity in the face of such an attack so quickly and easily gave way to notions like keeping gays out of marriage and other small-minded notions. I had hoped that we could hold that sense of unity quite a bit longer.
But what do I know? It’s far more important to feel good about pointing out perceived fallacies in the opposing perspective. That’s just irony, I’m not taking a shot at you, Mindy. I’m just disappointed that we lost the drive to work together instead of blaming the dreaded “other side.”
Salutations,
Mitch
Peter and/or Glenn,
Could you put the Sign In link at the top of the page? That would make it easier and faster to leave a reply. Thanks.
Peter and/or Glenn,
Also, once I post a reply, I then have to ‘Sign In’ again to post a second reply, even if it is still on the same topic. Is it possible to set it up so that one ‘Sign In’ lasts for the entirety of the visit?
Kingbobb: Yet national security was of so low a profile to our sitting President that, after hearing that a fully loaded jetliner had crashed into the World Trade Center