Fahrenheit 9/11 Review by FOX NEWS

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Steps WERE taken. The FAA asked the military to scramble jets to intercept. The Chain of Command worked quite well.

"Do you wanna scramble planes?"

"*sigh*.... I don't know."

"Well, you got 10 minutes to figure it out."

[Guest MikeSC]

He allowed the men trained and paid by the gov't to handle emergencies to HANDLE THE EMERGENCY. There was, yet again, NOTHING he could do that wasn't done.

There was something and that was exactly it, SOMETHING. He could have got up, said there was something that commanded his attention, and kept his ear to the ground. That _at least_ is taking an actual role in the matter, even if it is just listening. What actually happened was he continued on reading and had himself separated from whatever was going on behind the scenes for those 10 minutes. It's not much, but it is still something. It's better than nothing.

Ah, so the APPEARANCE is all that matters --- never mind that if, due to the spotty info he had, his actions might have HAMPERED EFFORTS --- as long as you think he was trying to do something, that's the important thing.

 

See, when Bush got the info --- HE DID SHIT ABOUT IT. Of course, people like YOU carp about it endlessly.

No, you said he SHOULD know because we received threats. I simply mentioned --- and Marney provided numbers --- of the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS we receive EVERY SINGLE DAY. We CAN'T respond to all of them.

Don't you think that an Airplane flying into the WTC is a little different from the normal threats they get? Especially since it lines up with some of the intel they've been getting?

No. They got NO intel to indicate that the WTC any more of a target than untold hundreds of others. A plane flies into WTC. Like it or not, that CAN be an accident. It takes a minute or two to collect enough data to recognize that it WASN'T one. The moment they learned it wasn't an accident, action was immediately made.

Correct. Accidents CAN happen and you can't automatically assume that a plane hitting a building is a terrorist attack. The response came when WHAT WAS HAPPENING BECAME CLEAR.

This wasn't just "a plane hitting a building" Mike. This wasn't just a fucking twin engine that flew into a hardware store in some small town in Idaho. It was a jumbo jet hitting the WTC in NYC. This is an important specific, Mike. You know the World Trade Centre? The place, where in 1993, was home to a terrorist attack that was connected to AQ? Ones that happen to stand out pretty fucking well in the NYC sky line. And you know those big planes? The ones that have auto navigation as well as well-trained pilots? The ones that would be nearly impossible to crash into a building like the WTC by mistake?

And YOU are working with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight.

 

Guess what --- accidents CAN happen. It is POSSIBLE that a plane could hit WTC accidentally. It's unlikely, but it IS a possibility. We can't act until we know WHAT the situation is.

 

Hell, we originally thought Arabs were behind the OKC bombing. I guess we should've just dropped bombs in the Middle East.

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

 

Is it LIKELY? No. But CAN a plane possibly fly into a building accidentally? Absolutely.

I think -taking the situation into account which you aren't doing- there would be a greater possibility of a terrorist attack than an accident, Mike

Considering that --- revisionist history be damned --- ALMOST NOBODY CONCEIVED AS A KAMIKAZE MISSION as a legitimate possibility of terrorist attacks --- no, it's not a reasonable assumption.

 

And, again, if Bush scared the kids today --- and it WAS an accident --- what would you be saying now?

When you get the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS WE GET EVERY SINGLE DAY, you could assume any car accident is a terrorist attack.

 

A car accidentally plows into a building? Terrorist attack.

 

Plane crashes in the field? Probably terrorists who couldn't fly too well.

-=Mike

Again, misdirection. Mike, this is a very specific incident that was happening. This wasn't "any car accident".

Hardly misdirection. Threats pour in by the hundreds EVERY SINGLE DAY threatening a WIDE VARIETY of attacks.

 

Using your logic, Bush was supposed to know that not only were the 9/11 attacks obvious terrorist attacks before, oh, ANYBODY ELSE DID --- he was supposed to act on this knowledge that NOBODY had.

 

It isn't quite logical.

RRR, just to give you a little support since it seems like no one else is reading your posts, I'd say you've been spot on with everything.

 

Accidents happen. This I agree with. Thinking for a split second that two jumbo jets flying into the WTC could possibly be an accident. This I don't agree with.

In case you missed it, Bush was taking action before the 2nd plane hit (remember, he "sat in the room for 11 minutes after learning --- the 2nd plane hit about 20 minutes after the 1st). Jets were scrambling BEFORE THE SECOND PLANE HIT. Everything that COULD be done was BEING done.

 

Time for a news flash: Every bad thing that happens is not due to negligence by others.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Time for a news flash: Every bad thing that happens is not due to negligence by others.

 

When it comes to Bush, Mike, there are those who will argue otherwise no matter what.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Ah, so the APPEARANCE is all that matters --- never mind that if, due to the spotty info he had, his actions might have HAMPERED EFFORTS --- as long as you think he was trying to do something, that's the important thing.

 

You're a gem Mike. Do you have ANY reading comprehension skills? Or do you just see certain words and don't actually care about content or context? *Listening* is not just for "Appearance" sakes. He's the president, a potential terrorist attack just occured in NYC, he should have been involved in the matter. See, now I have to define my intention of the word "involved", because you CLEARLY have no intention of relating it to my stance on the issue -but rather- will take another meaning from it and twist my words around. By "involved" I mean something like this:

 

*Bush gets informed that a jumbo jet hit the WTC*

Bush: Ok kids, I'm sorry but I have to cut this story short, I have some important business to attend to - big President stuff. But don't you worry, you're teacher will take over for me now. Bye.

 

Class: Bye. (or, in your case: "AAAAAAAAH!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!" - because, for some reason, you think this would alarm the children.)

 

*Bush walks out of the room and talks with his advisors.*

 

Bush: What's going on?

 

*Advisor goes over the situation*

 

Bush: I see..

 

*Bush gives his opinion on the matter, they discuss it and keep an eye on the phone - or whatever they'd do in a situation like this.*

 

.. In other words, NOT CONTINUE READING! But rather, IMMEDIATELY responding. Please don't make me define "respond", I'll just point you to "involve".

 

See, when Bush got the info --- HE DID SHIT ABOUT IT. Of course, people like YOU carp about it endlessly.

 

I'd be happy just having my original point there and then having someone actually respond to it appropriately. It's YOU who keep twisting and misinterpreting and dragging this on. It's pretty simple, yet you want to complicate things and fog the actual point.

 

No. They got NO intel to indicate that the WTC any more of a target than untold hundreds of others. A plane flies into WTC. Like it or not, that CAN be an accident. It takes a minute or two to collect enough data to recognize that it WASN'T one. The moment they learned it wasn't an accident, action was immediately made.

 

Mike, how can you possibly say that an airplane -and not just any airplane but a jet that has various navigational tools which prevent it from hitting buildings not-to-mention capable pilots who better damn well know how to avoid city skylines as-well-as having regulations which specifically state they have to fly at a certain altitude to avoid such incidences- that crashes into the WTC - a building that was _previously attacked by terrorists_ and that stands outs pretty well in the city- could have been an "accident". You'd have to be stupid to think it was an accident.

 

And YOU are working with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight.

 

Guess what --- accidents CAN happen. It is POSSIBLE that a plane could hit WTC accidentally. It's unlikely, but it IS a possibility. We can't act until we know WHAT the situation is.

 

You are saying "act" like it's military action; I am saying "act" as in immediately keeping an eye/ear on the situation. Bush didn't do that. He ignored it and went back to reading to the kiddies.

 

Accidents _like this_ DON'T HAPPEN, Mike. If the engines went out, then the pilot surely wouldn't steer the plane towards the fucking big buildings. This isn't hindsight Mike, it's math...

 

Jumbo Jet + World Trade Centre = Terrorist Attack.

 

Hell, we originally thought Arabs were behind the OKC bombing. I guess we should've just dropped bombs in the Middle East.

 

Yes, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Lemme recall that...

 

Oh that stupid Bush, he was so stupid.  He should have bombed the Middle East the moment he was told what had happened.

 

Oh wait, I NEVER SAID THAT. Mike, PLEASE, for the love of god, GET IT FUCKING RIGHT.

 

Considering that --- revisionist history be damned --- ALMOST NOBODY CONCEIVED AS A KAMIKAZE MISSION as a legitimate possibility of terrorist attacks --- no, it's not a reasonable assumption.

 

As early as 1995 they were aware of attacks on US soil to US landmarks through the use of Airplanes. The attack on the USS Cole was a suicide attack - so don't say it's not a reasonable assumption. Hell, with the way you interpret what I say, you don't even know what reasonable means.

 

And, again, if Bush scared the kids today --- and it WAS an accident --- what would you be saying now?

 

How do you know he would have "scared the kids"? What warped world do you live in? Besides, I wouldn't give a damn - I hate kids. He was reacting to a situation that smelled of terrorist attacks, he was taking an active role in the matter - like a president should.

 

Hardly misdirection. Threats pour in by the hundreds EVERY SINGLE DAY threatening a WIDE VARIETY of attacks.

 

Totally misdirection. I was refering to something very specific and you used a very broad analogy to relate. "every car crash" vs. "jumbo jet flying into the WTC" - one happens every day, one (should) NEVER happen.

 

Using your logic, Bush was supposed to know that not only were the 9/11 attacks obvious terrorist attacks before, oh, ANYBODY ELSE DID --- he was supposed to act on this knowledge that NOBODY had.

 

It isn't quite logical.

 

Mike, "A large airplane 'accidently' hits the largest building in Manhattan and a previous terrorist target" isn't quite logical.

 

And your line of thinking is flawed. I doubt Bush was the first one to hear about the plane crashing into the building and I doubt anyone who heard it before him thought it wasn't a terrorist attack. And AGAIN Mike, you're drifting off and putting words in my mouth.

 

Everything that COULD be done was BEING done.

 

Exactly. Bush couldn't have done ANYTHING - not listen to what's going on, not inquire, not speculate with advisors - BUT read to the children.

 

Time for a news flash: Every bad thing that happens is not due to negligence by others.

 

*Every*?

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so the APPEARANCE is all that matters --- never mind that if, due to the spotty info he had, his actions might have HAMPERED EFFORTS --- as long as you think he was trying to do something, that's the important thing.

You're a gem Mike. Do you have ANY reading comprehension skills? Or do you just see certain words and don't actually care about content or context? *Listening* is not just for "Appearance" sakes. He's the president, a potential terrorist attack just occured in NYC, he should have been involved in the matter. See, now I have to define my intention of the word "involved", because you CLEARLY have no intention of relating it to my stance on the issue -but rather- will take another meaning from it and twist my words around. By "involved" I mean something like this:

<SNIP>

Advice: Leave the fantasy writing on the WWE board. It's silly here.

 

And, you seem to assume that the advisors would have info THAT NOBODY HAD AT THE TIME.

 

Again, not a hell of a lot Bush could do.

See, when Bush got the info --- HE DID SHIT ABOUT IT. Of course, people like YOU carp about it endlessly.

I'd be happy just having my original point there and then having someone actually respond to it appropriately. It's YOU who keep twisting and misinterpreting and dragging this on. It's pretty simple, yet you want to complicate things and fog the actual point.

Bush doesn't have info during the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't make big orders and lets the people at the scene handle the situation. He GETS info and proceeds to unleash the war on terror.

 

Really, not complex.

No. They got NO intel to indicate that the WTC any more of a target than untold hundreds of others. A plane flies into WTC. Like it or not, that CAN be an accident. It takes a minute or two to collect enough data to recognize that it WASN'T one. The moment they learned it wasn't an accident, action was immediately made.

Mike, how can you possibly say that an airplane -and not just any airplane but a jet that has various navigational tools which prevent it from hitting buildings not-to-mention capable pilots who better damn well know how to avoid city skylines as-well-as having regulations which specifically state they have to fly at a certain altitude to avoid such incidences- that crashes into the WTC - a building that was _previously attacked by terrorists_ and that stands outs pretty well in the city- could have been an "accident". You'd have to be stupid to think it was an accident.

Gee, how can somebody drive their car into a house? I don't know --- BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

 

People can ASSUME all day long --- the President cannot act until he has much more than ASSUMPTIONS to go on.

And YOU are working with that wonderful 20/20 hindsight.

 

Guess what --- accidents CAN happen. It is POSSIBLE that a plane could hit WTC accidentally. It's unlikely, but it IS a possibility. We can't act until we know WHAT the situation

You are saying "act" like it's military action; I am saying "act" as in immediately keeping an eye/ear on the situation. Bush didn't do that. He ignored it and went back to reading to the kiddies.

 

Accidents _like this_ DON'T HAPPEN, Mike. If the engines went out, then the pilot surely wouldn't steer the plane towards the fucking big buildings. This isn't hindsight Mike, it's math...

 

Jumbo Jet + World Trade Centre = Terrorist Attack. is.

Guess what? Bush WAS ON TOP OF THINGS. He knew everything ANYBODY knew at the time. And, somebody earlier posted a link to a story where a plane hit a building accidentally, I believe.

Hell, we originally thought Arabs were behind the OKC bombing. I guess we should've just dropped bombs in the Middle East.

Yes, because that's exactly what I'm saying. Lemme recall that...

 

Oh that stupid Bush, he was so stupid.  He should have bombed the Middle East the moment he was told what had happened.

 

Oh wait, I NEVER SAID THAT. Mike, PLEASE, for the love of god, GET IT FUCKING RIGHT.

No, you're saying he should've "acted" --- SCANT INFO BE DAMNED.

Considering that --- revisionist history be damned --- ALMOST NOBODY CONCEIVED AS A KAMIKAZE MISSION as a legitimate possibility of terrorist attacks --- no, it's not a reasonable assumption.

As early as 1995 they were aware of attacks on US soil to US landmarks through the use of Airplanes. The attack on the USS Cole was a suicide attack - so don't say it's not a reasonable assumption. Hell, with the way you interpret what I say, you don't even know what reasonable means.

Our knowledge of the Cole bombing is scant as we couldn't do much in terms of investigation thanks to Yemeni authorities.

 

And, again, kamikaze missions were NOT considered all that plausible.

 

But, hey, it's easy for you to make calls when all the info is in front of you and you've had a few years.

And, again, if Bush scared the kids today --- and it WAS an accident --- what would you be saying now?

How do you know he would have "scared the kids"? What warped world do you live in? Besides, I wouldn't give a damn - I hate kids. He was reacting to a situation that smelled of terrorist attacks, he was taking an active role in the matter - like a president should.

You still fail to mention what he DIDN'T do that he should have.

 

Well, outside of APPEARING to do things.

Hardly misdirection. Threats pour in by the hundreds EVERY SINGLE DAY threatening a WIDE VARIETY of attacks.

Totally misdirection. I was refering to something very specific and you used a very broad analogy to relate. "every car crash" vs. "jumbo jet flying into the WTC" - one happens every day, one (should) NEVER happen.

And you seem to be ignoring a fact here.

 

We get threats EVERY DAY. We get threats of nuclear launches, hijackings, car bombs, etc.

 

So, which threats do we sweat and which do we not?

 

How can we tell if a plane crash is pilot error or a terrorist attack, since most cities have threats made on them by somebody.

 

It's not even like we had a solid timetable.

 

And, hell, just for the fun of it, we'll play a little hypothetical. This is rare as I am not fond of hypotheticals.

 

Let's say Bush KNEW. Let's say he KNEW everything. He knew the site. He knew the date. He knew roughly the time.

 

What then? What does he do then? Shut down Manhattan and Washington DC? Hope they don't go for secondary targets? Heck, shut down ALL flights for that day and hope the terrorists don't take flights the NEXT day?

Using your logic, Bush was supposed to know that not only were the 9/11 attacks obvious terrorist attacks before, oh, ANYBODY ELSE DID --- he was supposed to act on this knowledge that NOBODY had.

 

It isn't quite logical.

Mike, "A large airplane 'accidently' hits the largest building in Manhattan and a previous terrorist target" isn't quite logical.

 

And your line of thinking is flawed. I doubt Bush was the first one to hear about the plane crashing into the building and I doubt anyone who heard it before him thought it wasn't a terrorist attack. And AGAIN Mike, you're drifting off and putting words in my mouth.

I can say that the press wasn't mentioning terrorism too quickly. I can say that Bush needs a bit of info to go on before making sweeping decisions. Hate to have jets shoot down planes at random due to a pilot accident.

Everything that COULD be done was BEING done.

Exactly. Bush couldn't have done ANYTHING - not listen to what's going on, not inquire, not speculate with advisors - BUT read to the children.

Bush knew what was going on and was informed by his advisors WHEN NEW, CREDIBLE INFO came in. It's not like he went to the podium and said "So, what the fuck happened in New York this morning?"

 

Let me guess --- Al Gore would've acted, right?

Time for a news flash: Every bad thing that happens is not due to negligence by others.

*Every*?

Yup. Sometimes, bad shit happens that nobody can really stop.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Mike, can you do this for me...

 

Rather than responding to what I am saying -because you're clearly fucking it up- could you please interpret what I am saying as YOU see it. I honestly don't understand how you are getting some of these impressions. It's kinda scaring me. So -briefly- put yourself in my shoes and state my POV.

 

Here, I'll take the first step and I'll put myself in your shoes...

 

"There is no way Bush could have immediately reacted to being told a plane crashed into the World Trade Centre. For one, they weren't aware of any terrorist plans that regarded such acts so they couldn't possibly make the connection. Secondly, it could have been an accident as it's not out of the realm of possibility that a plane could crash into a skyscraper. Third, he had people underneath him who were capable of handling the situation and anything he would have done could have gotten in their way. Fourth, had he stopped reading and put focus on the crash, he would have scared the children.

 

The best thing for him to do was continue reading and not take a role in the proceedings until he knew what exactly was going on."

 

Accurate?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, can you do this for me...

 

Rather than responding to what I am saying -because you're clearly fucking it up- could you please interpret what I am saying as YOU see it. I honestly don't understand how you are getting some of these impressions. It's kinda scaring me. So -briefly- put yourself in my shoes and state my POV.

BUSH SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING. HE SHOULD'VE ACTED. NO, HE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING --- BUT HE SHOULD'VE DONE SOMETHING. ACCIDENTS CAN'T POSSIBLY HAPPEN. SCREW THE COUPLE OF HUNDRED THREATS WE HAVE --- HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK BEFORE ANYBODY.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You're not very good at this Mike. I see 3 inaccuracies in that referencing something that I have never said. Wanna point them out?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Cheney took charge from White House bunker

But administration's response called slow and uninformed

 

Dana Milbank, Washington Post

 

Washington -- At 10:39 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a bunker beneath the White House, told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a video teleconference that he had been informed earlier that morning that hijacked planes were approaching Washington.

 

"Pursuant to the president's instructions, I gave authorization for them to be taken out," Cheney told Rumsfeld, who was at the Pentagon. Informing Rumsfeld that the pilots had received orders to fire, Cheney added, "It's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out."

 

Cheney's comments, which were soon proved erroneous, were detailed in a report issued Thursday by the commission investigating the terrorist attacks. The comments are part of the considerable confusion that surrounded top government officials as the tense drama unfolded.

 

The commission's description of actions taken by Cheney and President Bush, based in part on interviews with both men, provides new details of that morning. The report portrays the vice president taking command from his bunker while Bush, who was in Florida, communicated with the White House in a series of phone calls, and occasionally had trouble getting through.

 

In making the grave decision to issue a lethal order without precedent in American history -- an order that as it turned out never made it to fighter pilots and, in the end, was too late -- Cheney both struggled with the confusion of that morning and personified it, according to the commission staff report.

 

Cheney, who told the commission he was operating on instructions from Bush given in a phone call, issued authority for aircraft threatening Washington to be shot down. But the commission noted that "among the sources that reflect other important events that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, although the relevant sources are incomplete." Those sources include Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and his wife, Lynne.

 

Bush and Cheney told the commission that they remember the phone call. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who had joined Cheney, told the commission that she heard the vice president discuss the rules of engagement for fighter jets over Washington with Bush.

 

Within minutes, Cheney would use his authority. Told -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that a presumably hijacked aircraft was 80 miles from Washington, Cheney decided to authorize jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., to engage it, the commission reported.

 

Only later did White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten suggest that Cheney call Bush once more to confirm the engagement order, according to the commission. Logs in Cheney's bunker and on Air Force One confirm conversations at 10:18 and 10:20.

 

Later, Cheney spoke to Rumsfeld via teleconference. When the vice president said the orders had been relayed to the jets and "a couple of aircraft" had been downed, Rumsfeld replied: "We can't confirm that."

 

But the commission determined that the Langley jets never received the shoot-down order. It was passed down the chain of command, but commanders of the North American Aerospace Defense Command's northeast sector did not give it to the pilots.

 

"Both the mission commander and the weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to fighters circling Washington and New York City because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance," the commission reported.

 

"In short," the report added, "while leaders believed the fighters circling above them had been instructed to 'take out' hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the Langley pilots were to 'ID type and tail. ' "

 

Unknown to Cheney or Bush, however, by 10:45 other fighter jets would be circling Washington, and these had clear authority to shoot down planes, the commission determined. They were sent from Andrews Air Force Base by an Air National Guard commander, in consultation with the Secret Service.

 

That arrangement was "outside the military chain of command," according to the commission report. Bush and Cheney were unaware that fighters had been scrambled from Andrews.

 

Cheney would give the order to engage twice -- at news that United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was approaching Washington, and at what turned out to be a medevac copter, the commission determined. Neither aircraft was engaged.

 

About 9 a.m. that day, at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla., Bush adviser Karl Rove first told Bush and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center.

 

Cheney was pondering "how the hell a plane could hit the World Trade Center" when he saw the second plane crash into the South Tower, the commission reported.

 

Bush remained in the classroom for "five to seven minutes" after learning of the second crash. He had his first conversation with Cheney at about 9:15.

 

Communications with Washington were so poor that Bush at one point resorted to using a cell phone on the way to Air Force One, according to the commission.

 

Bush and Cheney spoke again at 9:45, while Bush was on the tarmac aboard Air Force One. By that time, both towers of the World Trade Center were aflame and the Pentagon had been hit.

 

Cheney joined the Secret Service and Card in urging Bush not to return to Washington. The two apparently were still on the phone, about 10 minutes later, as Air Force One took off from Florida without a destination.

 

"The objective was to get up in the air -- as fast and as high as possible -- and then decide where to go," the commission report noted.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG2J78BSC1.DTL

 

The incompetance of these people is astounding. Chain of command worked, my ass.

[Guest MikeSC]

I suppose you had a point here.

 

Well, I'm giving you benefit of the doubt.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Let's play, "Guess Who Said That?"

 

ROUND ONE:

The Chain of Command worked quite well.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Advice: Leave the fantasy writing on the WWE board. It's silly here.

 

And, you seem to assume that the advisors would have info THAT NOBODY HAD AT THE TIME.

 

Again, not a hell of a lot Bush could do.

 

I would have loved to, but you weren't able to get my point on the 12th try, so I figured I should do something more detailed.

 

Again, he could have listened in. He didn't. He seperated himself from it. My original point stands and remains unanswered.

 

Bush doesn't have info during the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't make big orders and lets the people at the scene handle the situation. He GETS info and proceeds to unleash the war on terror.

 

Really, not complex.

 

He had _lots_ on info before the 9/11 attacks, all pointing to "they're going to attack us". I never said anything about big orders or not letting people handle the situation. My problem is he didn't immediately stop reading to children and take a more active role. Why wasn't he right beside the phone to get the information? Why was he talking to children instead?

 

Gee, how can somebody drive their car into a house? I don't know --- BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

 

1. A car doesn't have auto pilot that plots a course.

2. Pilots are more well-trained than drivers.

3. The World Trade Centre is bigger -and stands out more- than a house.

4. Houses usually don't get targed by cars in a previous instance.

 

People can ASSUME all day long --- the President cannot act until he has much more than ASSUMPTIONS to go on.

 

The president -with the assumption- can still do _something_ rather than _nothing_. You aren't getting this concept and I FUCKING LAID IT OUT FOR YOU. By "act" I do not mean the following:

 

-Call for F16's to shoot down any plane in the sky

-Bomb the middle east

-Scare children

-Anything that harms anyone

 

By "act" I *do* mean the following:

- Talk

- Listen

- Participate in what's going on behind the scenes

- Stop reading.

 

DO

 

YOU

 

UNDERSTAND?

 

Guess what? Bush WAS ON TOP OF THINGS.

 

HE WAS READING TO CHILDREN. That is not "on top of things", unless that "thing" is about a cat in a hat.

 

He knew everything ANYBODY knew at the time.

 

I seriously doubt he did. However, He knew all he needed to know, IMO. I already gave the formula.

 

And, somebody earlier posted a link to a story where a plane hit a building accidentally, I believe.

 

1. It was in the 40's. Navigation Technology has come a long way since then.

2. It was very foggy - a quick look at a weather radar would tell you otherwise.

3. In that article, PEOPLE SAID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING ATTACKED.

4. There had been a previous attack on the World Trade Centre by terrorists.

 

Our knowledge of the Cole bombing is scant as we couldn't do much in terms of investigation thanks to Yemeni authorities.

 

*Types in "USS Cole Suicide attack* *finds 25,000 articles* It was a suicide attack; terrorists were willing to kill themselves to hurt Americans.

 

And, again, kamikaze missions were NOT considered all that plausible.

 

Even though they happened before? Even though there was information that said they could happen?

 

It's not "all that plausible". Mike, you're kidding me... right?

 

But, hey, it's easy for you to make calls when all the info is in front of you and you've had a few years.

 

Cause it's not like Bush was ever updated or talked to in-detail the situation prior to 9/11. No. He was clueless.

 

You still fail to mention what he DIDN'T do that he should have.

 

Well, outside of APPEARING to do things.

 

Mike, buddy, you haven't been paying attention at all, have you? I mean, I'm trying to help you out here; trying to open up communication - but you've put the blinders up.

 

And you seem to be ignoring a fact here.

 

We get threats EVERY DAY. We get threats of nuclear launches, hijackings, car bombs, etc.

 

So, which threats do we sweat and which do we not?

 

Well, maybe, THE ONES THAT FUCKING HAPPEN. A jumbo jet crashes into a previously targeted -well known- and HUGE building. Hmm, maybe THAT deserves some attention, eh?

 

How can we tell if a plane crash is pilot error or a terrorist attack, since most cities have threats made on them by somebody.

 

"pilot error"? You'd consider THAT "pilot error"? That SPECIFICALLY - would be "pilot error"?

 

It's not even like we had a solid timetable.

 

And, hell, just for the fun of it, we'll play a little hypothetical. This is rare as I am not fond of hypotheticals.

 

Let's say Bush KNEW. Let's say he KNEW everything. He knew the site. He knew the date. He knew roughly the time.

 

What then? What does he do then? Shut down Manhattan and Washington DC? Hope they don't go for secondary targets? Heck, shut down ALL flights for that day and hope the terrorists don't take flights the NEXT day?

 

I just want him to do something. I just want him to...

 

Stop

 

Reading.

 

And you've been confusing this since the very beginning Mike. I am saying _once it happened_ he should have done something. When a "threat" becomes a "reality", it's time to put the book down.

 

I can say that the press wasn't mentioning terrorism too quickly.

 

_The Press_ has to take a little more caution when reporting news as not to create widespread panic. Plus, they weren't as informed as the president was. They didn't have detailed meetings with the CIA.

 

I can say that Bush needs a bit of info to go on before making sweeping decisions. Hate to have jets shoot down planes at random due to a pilot accident.

 

When did I ever say shooting planes down? When did I say sweeping decisions? Mike, if I had a penny for all the erroneous statements you've attributed to me, I'd be able to go to the movie theatre. Strangely enough, there'd be more reality in any film in theatres now than what you've been saying. And that's including Day After...

 

Bush knew what was going on and was informed by his advisors WHEN NEW, CREDIBLE INFO came in. It's not like he went to the podium and said "So, what the fuck happened in New York this morning?"

 

So he just kept on reading. Great fucking work.

 

Let me guess --- Al Gore would've acted, right?

 

I'm not a democrat. Al Gore is an idiot. How anyone could lose their own state in a fucking presidential election -to George W. of all people- is beyond me.

 

Yup. Sometimes, bad shit happens that nobody can really stop.

 

Mike, "Every" and "Sometimes" are different. You even goof your own fucking statements.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Not so with "F9/11," which instead relies on lots of film footage and actual interviews to make its case against the war in Iraq and tell the story of the intertwining histories of the Bush and bin Laden families.

 

I found that fairly interesting and seems to match some reaction coming out of cannes taht supposedly the movie features less obnoxious Moore-ishness and more reliance on the power of the images shown. If so that would be a good thing.

 

Anyways, all things considered, that has to be considered close to a positive review coming from foxnews.

 

The story about the mother and her kids to iraq for opportunities sounds pretty interesting (darkly), there could be a good documentary waiting to break out on that subject.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ebert responded to a question regarding Moore and bias in his film recently. I think it makes for good reading:

 

'9/11': Just the facts?

 

June 18, 2004

 

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A reader writes:

 

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

 

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

 

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

 

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

 

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

 

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

 

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

 

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

 

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

 

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

 

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

 

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

Nice to see Ebert still isn't angry at Moore for beating him in the Cannes Hot Dog eating contest back in '98.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's play, "Guess Who Said That?"

 

ROUND ONE:

The Chain of Command worked quite well.

Chain of Command worked fine. Marney was quite correct. All actions that could be taken were taken. Again, it's GREAT to be able to nitpick with the clarity of hindsight.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ugh. I saw this fat fuck on Letterman last night. After listening to about 20 seconds of his shit I had to change the channel...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film

 

And this is coming from a guy who's seen the Nick Berg thing so don't you tell me about how more Americans need to see beheadings to understand the terrorists, because I've already seen one, and I still disagree.

 

I can't believe the thing has gotten this much hype and nobody has made clear mention of this.

[Guest MikeSC]

Advice: Leave the fantasy writing on the WWE board. It's silly here.

 

And, you seem to assume that the advisors would have info THAT NOBODY HAD AT THE TIME.

 

Again, not a hell of a lot Bush could do.

I would have loved to, but you weren't able to get my point on the 12th try, so I figured I should do something more detailed.

 

Again, he could have listened in. He didn't. He seperated himself from it. My original point stands and remains unanswered.

Bush WAS kept very much up to date as to what was happening. He got the info WHEN IT CAME IN.

 

I can't believe you're actually trying to make an issue out of this. Even Kennedy hasn't stooped to that.

Bush doesn't have info during the 9/11 attacks. He doesn't make big orders and lets the people at the scene handle the situation. He GETS info and proceeds to unleash the war on terror.

 

Really, not complex.

He had _lots_ on info before the 9/11 attacks, all pointing to "they're going to attack us". I never said anything about big orders or not letting people handle the situation. My problem is he didn't immediately stop reading to children and take a more active role. Why wasn't he right beside the phone to get the information? Why was he talking to children instead?

"They're going to attack us --- at some unforeseen date, some unforeseen location, in some unforeseen manner."

 

You always seem to forget that.

 

Why didn't he get on the phone to get more info? What could HE learn that his advisors couldn't? Do you think the authorities KEPT info from the advisors and would ONLY give it to Bush?

Gee, how can somebody drive their car into a house? I don't know --- BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

1. A car doesn't have auto pilot that plots a course.

2. Pilots are more well-trained than drivers.

3. The World Trade Centre is bigger -and stands out more- than a house.

4. Houses usually don't get targed by cars in a previous instance.

Drivers actually tend to have more experience driving their car that airline pilots have flying their aircraft. You know, all those hours of driving they do every single day of their lives.

 

And, I love the logic that because something was targeted 8 MONTHS AGO, we should assume ANY accident involving it is OBVIOUSLY a terrorist attack.

People can ASSUME all day long --- the President cannot act until he has much more than ASSUMPTIONS to go on.

The president -with the assumption- can still do _something_ rather than _nothing_. You aren't getting this concept and I FUCKING LAID IT OUT FOR YOU. By "act" I do not mean the following:

 

-Call for F16's to shoot down any plane in the sky

-Bomb the middle east

-Scare children

-Anything that harms anyone

 

By "act" I *do* mean the following:

- Talk

- Listen

- Participate in what's going on behind the scenes

- Stop reading.

 

DO

 

YOU

 

UNDERSTAND?

So, again, you are all about the appearance, eh? Just so long as he put on the act to make you happy, right? Never mind that he has people handling it and he will have to spend a bit of time and get some input from others as to what to do next.

Guess what? Bush WAS ON TOP OF THINGS.

HE WAS READING TO CHILDREN. That is not "on top of things", unless that "thing" is about a cat in a hat.

Good lord you're dense about this.

 

Fine, I'll ask you ONE question --- Was there ANYTHING Bush could do that could have fixed the problem? And give me concrete examples --- none of this "participate" BS. What could he have done that he didn't do that would've changed one tiny thing?

He knew everything ANYBODY knew at the time.

I seriously doubt he did. However, He knew all he needed to know, IMO. I already gave the formula.

So, he knew all he "needed to know" --- in your own words.

 

So, what EXACTLY is the problem?

And, somebody earlier posted a link to a story where a plane hit a building accidentally, I believe.

1. It was in the 40's. Navigation Technology has come a long way since then.

2. It was very foggy - a quick look at a weather radar would tell you otherwise.

3. In that article, PEOPLE SAID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING ATTACKED.

4. There had been a previous attack on the World Trade Centre by terrorists.

Still shoots that whole "Planes don't fly into buildings" theory out of water.

Our knowledge of the Cole bombing is scant as we couldn't do much in terms of investigation thanks to Yemeni authorities.

*Types in "USS Cole Suicide attack* *finds 25,000 articles* It was a suicide attack; terrorists were willing to kill themselves to hurt Americans.

Wow, THAT is one withering dispute. Never mind that FBI agents were pissed that the Yemeni authorities severely hampered their ability to investigate --- a ton of articles state something happened. The media is NEVER wrong.

And, again, kamikaze missions were NOT considered all that plausible.

Even though they happened before? Even though there was information that said they could happen?

 

It's not "all that plausible". Mike, you're kidding me... right?

Hell, maybe Marney can give you a contact to call in the CIA for a job --- your obviously deep insight into possibilities few others see is AMAZING. Man, if more people listened to YOU, none of this would've happened.

But, hey, it's easy for you to make calls when all the info is in front of you and you've had a few years.

Cause it's not like Bush was ever updated or talked to in-detail the situation prior to 9/11. No. He was clueless.

Let me guess --- you think the intel memos he gets have definitive times, places, attack modes, etc on them, right? That's some cute naivete there.

You still fail to mention what he DIDN'T do that he should have.

 

Well, outside of APPEARING to do things.

Mike, buddy, you haven't been paying attention at all, have you? I mean, I'm trying to help you out here; trying to open up communication - but you've put the blinders up.

Somebody here said he knew "all he needed to know" in this thread.

 

I can't remember who said it, though.

 

Do you know who said it?

And you seem to be ignoring a fact here.

 

We get threats EVERY DAY. We get threats of nuclear launches, hijackings, car bombs, etc.

 

So, which threats do we sweat and which do we not?

Well, maybe, THE ONES THAT FUCKING HAPPEN. A jumbo jet crashes into a previously targeted -well known- and HUGE building. Hmm, maybe THAT deserves some attention, eh?

Well, gee, Marney NEEDS to give you a contact --- hell, maybe Dr. Tom can help, too. The gov't NEEDS people who can determine of the couple of hundred threats they receive each day which ones WILL FUCKING HAPPEN. Would save TRILLIONS of dollars in labor and the like.

How can we tell if a plane crash is pilot error or a terrorist attack, since most cities have threats made on them by somebody.

"pilot error"? You'd consider THAT "pilot error"? That SPECIFICALLY - would be "pilot error"?

The first one? Absolutely. Error is a possibility. When the ruled it out --- JETS WERE SCRAMBLED.

 

At what point are you getting derailed in this train of thought?

It's not even like we had a solid timetable.

 

And, hell, just for the fun of it, we'll play a little hypothetical. This is rare as I am not fond of hypotheticals.

 

Let's say Bush KNEW. Let's say he KNEW everything. He knew the site. He knew the date. He knew roughly the time.

 

What then? What does he do then? Shut down Manhattan and Washington DC? Hope they don't go for secondary targets? Heck, shut down ALL flights for that day and hope the terrorists don't take flights the NEXT day?

I just want him to do something. I just want him to...

 

Stop

 

Reading.

 

And you've been confusing this since the very beginning Mike. I am saying _once it happened_ he should have done something. When a "threat" becomes a "reality", it's time to put the book down.

And, in case you missed it --- HE DID THAT.

 

He read for eleven minutes after the first jet hit. Guess what --- it takes a bit of time to coordinate all of the info to come up with the conclusion that it's not an accident. The moment the conclusion was reached, he stopped reading and made that announcement.

I can say that the press wasn't mentioning terrorism too quickly.

_The Press_ has to take a little more caution when reporting news as not to create widespread panic. Plus, they weren't as informed as the president was. They didn't have detailed meetings with the CIA.

BWA HA HA HA HA!

 

Oh my God, you aren't actually believing this, are you?

 

OK, I'll go slow:

 

Being told that somebody, somewhere MIGHT attack at some point in the future, somewhere in the future, either here or abroad, and by some means we are not aware of yet --- that isn't exactly being "well informed".

 

That is basically what Bush had.

 

And, yes, the press can cause FAR MORE PROBLEMS in not being cautious than THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Of course.

I can say that Bush needs a bit of info to go on before making sweeping decisions. Hate to have jets shoot down planes at random due to a pilot accident.

When did I ever say shooting planes down? When did I say sweeping decisions? Mike, if I had a penny for all the erroneous statements you've attributed to me, I'd be able to go to the movie theatre. Strangely enough, there'd be more reality in any film in theatres now than what you've been saying. And that's including Day After...

So, basically you're bitching about Bush just to bitch. You can't name anything he should've done, besides "act" and "participate".

Bush knew what was going on and was informed by his advisors WHEN NEW, CREDIBLE INFO came in. It's not like he went to the podium and said "So, what the fuck happened in New York this morning?"

So he just kept on reading. Great fucking work.

You know, you're a brick wall here.

 

So, fine:

 

BUSH CAUSED 9/11.

 

HIS READING MADE THE WTC FALL DOWN AND THOUSANDS TO DIE.

 

HE DID ALL OF THIS TO PROVE THAT HE CAN READ.

 

HELL. HE KNEW WHEN, WHERE, AND HOW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN --- AND DECIDED TO READ TO LITTLE KIDS SO PEOPLE WOULD IGNORE HOW BLATANTLY EVIL HE WAS.

 

HELL, ODDS ARE, HE PAID THE TERRORISTS TO DO IT. HELL, HE MIGHT'VE PILOTED A PLANE AND A BODY DOUBLE WAS READING TO KIDS.

 

WE INVADED IRAQ TO COVER UP FOR HIS INSECURITY BASED ON HIS READING SKILLS.

 

BUSH'S READING WILL CAUSE THE END OF HUMANITY.

 

There.

 

That's as rational as your arguments --- hell, more so.

Yup. Sometimes, bad shit happens that nobody can really stop.

 

Mike, "Every" and "Sometimes" are different. You even goof your own fucking statements.

*sigh* If EVERY bad thing that happens isn't caused by negligence --- THAT FUCKING MEANS THAT SOMETIMES BAD SHIT HAPPENS THAT WE CAN'T STOP.

 

You're even wrong when you nitpick.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Again, I post...

 

I'd like to hear an explanation how a situation of this magnitude wouldn't require immediate attention by the president. They _knew_ that Bin Ladin was planning attacks on the U.S. which included the use of Airliners. I think "A Jet flew into one of the Twin Towers" would set off some alarms.

 

Of course, I don't think that Bush was _needed_ in that time because there were people -better than him- handling it. Sadly, that is not a good thing when the President -the top dog- isn't needed when terrorist attacks on America occur. Truly, all he is good for is photo ops and "reading to children".

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, I post...

 

I'd like to hear an explanation how a situation of this magnitude wouldn't require immediate attention by the president. They _knew_ that Bin Ladin was planning attacks on the U.S. which included the use of Airliners. I think "A Jet flew into one of the Twin Towers" would set off some alarms.

 

Of course, I don't think that Bush was _needed_ in that time because there were people -better than him- handling it. Sadly, that is not a good thing when the President -the top dog- isn't needed when terrorist attacks on America occur. Truly, all he is good for is photo ops and "reading to children".

This is just bitching to bitch. You're reaching the level of trolling now.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You're still not actually responding.

[Guest MikeSC]

You're still not actually responding.

There's nothing to respond to. You don't have an actual gripe --- you're just bitching at this point. I'm tired of it.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wow. Complete and total annihilation of the

tags up there. Donald Rumsfeld would be proud at that destroyed corpse of a post.

 

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow. Complete and total annihilation of the

tags up there. Donald Rumsfeld would be proud at that destroyed corpse of a post.

 

Happened with all of RRR's posts, God knows why. I fixed it the first few times. Wasn't going to that last one.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The fun continues...

 

Moore Film Title Angers Author Bradbury

 

By PAUL CHAVEZ

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission and wants the new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be renamed.

 

"He didn't ask my permission," Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. "That's not his novel, that's not his title, so he shouldn't have done it."

 

The 1953 novel, widely considered Bradbury's masterpiece, portrays an ugly futuristic society in which firemen burn homes and libraries in order to destroy the books inside and keep people from thinking independently.

 

"Fahrenheit 451" takes its title from the temperature at which books burn. Moore has called "Fahrenheit 9/11" the "temperature at which freedom burns."

 

His film, which won top honors in May at the Cannes Film Festival, charges that the Bush administration acted ineptly before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then played on the public's fear of future terrorism to gain support for the war against Iraq. It opens nationwide next Friday.

 

Bradbury, who hadn't seen the movie, said he called Moore's company six months ago to protest and was promised Moore would call back.

 

He finally got that call last Saturday, Bradbury said, adding Moore told him he was "embarrassed."

 

"He suddenly realized he's let too much time go by," the author said by phone from his home in Los Angeles' Cheviot Hills section.

 

Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the film's makers have "the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury."

 

"Mr. Bradbury's work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11," she said.

 

Bradbury, who is a registered political independent, said he would rather avoid litigation and is "hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he'll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title."

 

Moore's film needed new distributors after Disney refused to let its Miramax subsidiary release it, claiming it was too politically charged. The documentary was later bought by Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein, who lined up Lions Gate and IFC Films to help distribute it.

 

The movie's distributors are appealing to lower its R rating to PG-13 and a screening has been set for Tuesday by the Motion Picture Association of America's appeals board.

 

Bradbury's book was made into a 1966 movie directed by Francois Truffaut. A new edition of the book is scheduled for release in eight weeks, Bradbury said, and plans are in the works for a new film version, to be directed by Frank Darabont.