Fahrenheit 9/11

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

I DO pity our president for all the bad publicity the media has given him

I will excuse your lack of historical context due to your age. But the media has given Shrub a free ride until very recently. They admit it themselves. I think it is well stated in the International Herald Tribune, An Op-ed piece originally written for the New York Times! I was going to highlight sections, but the whole thing needs to be read by anyone interested in the truth.

 

Paul Krugman: America's press has been too soft on Bush

 

Paul Krugman NYT

 

Saturday, May 29, 2004

PRINCETON, New Jersey Some American news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down.

.

But it's not just Iraq, and it's not just The New York Times. Many American journalists seem to be having regrets about the broader context in which Iraq coverage was embedded: a climate in which the press wasn't willing to report negative information about President George W. Bush.

.

People who get their news by skimming the front page, or by watching television, must be feeling confused by the sudden change in Bush's character. For more than two years after the Sept. 11 attacks, he was a straight shooter, all moral clarity and righteousness.

.

But now those people hear about a president who won't tell a straight story about why he took America to war in Iraq, or about how that war is going, and who can't admit to and learn from mistakes, who won't hold himself or anyone else accountable. What happened?

.

The answer, of course, is that the straight shooter never existed. He was a fictitious character that the press, for various reasons, presented as reality.

.

The truth is that the character flaws that currently have even conservative pundits fuming have been visible all along. Bush's problems with the truth have long been apparent to anyone willing to check his budget arithmetic. His inability to admit mistakes has also been obvious for a long time. I first wrote about Bush's "infallibility complex" more than two years ago, and I wasn't being original.

.

So why did the press credit Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After Sept. 11, much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief.

.

Another answer is the tyranny of evenhandedness. Moderate and liberal journalists, both reporters and commentators, often bend over backward to say nice things about conservatives. Not long ago, many commentators who are now caustic Bush critics seemed desperate to differentiate themselves from "irrational Bush haters" who were neither haters nor irrational - and whose critiques look pretty mild in the light of recent revelations.

.

And some American journalists just couldn't bring themselves to believe that the president of the United States was being dishonest about such grave matters.

.

Finally, let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After Sept. 11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative about the president, you had to be prepared for an avalanche of hate mail. You had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation, and you had to worry about being denied access to the sort of insider information that is the basis of many journalistic careers.

.

The Bush administration, knowing all this, played the press like a fiddle. But has that era come to an end?

.

A new Pew survey finds 55 percent of journalists in the national media believing that the press has not been critical enough of Bush, compared with only 8 percent w

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

I DO pity our president for all the bad publicity the media has given him (with Fahrenheit at its pinnacle, of course).

And here we see that you have yet to learn the difference between venue types."The Media" refers to NEWS sources. TV/ Cable (esp News)/ Radio/ Newspapers/ ...

 

While Fahrenheit 9/11 was a MOVIE. A Documentary of course. But we no longer have "News Reels" at the movie houses. It was factual information packaged in entertainment with a message. Like they say on the Daily Show, "Anti-Bush sources, such as the News". No one was forced to see it. In fact no one even had to watch it "by accident". It required a proactive physical effort to go see it. People that went to see it knew what it was way before it was released.

 

Moore was only able to make such a horrendeous accounting of Bush because there was so much factual material to draw from. Those of us that ahve been paying attention from the beginning were not suprised by a single thing in it and wondered why lots more was not included.

 

Do you find it shocking to see footage of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam during business negotations just a few years agO? Is it Moore's fault that it happened? We should be angry that not every citizen in the US HAS seen it. That the news media has chosen to hide the footage rather than allow the US population to see what really took place!

 

Or the picts of the Taliban representitives that Bush brought to Texas as Gov, to solicit business relationships with the Taliban shortly before he ran for Pres!

 

Your mad at Moore because HE dared to show it!

 

What about the documented connections with the bin Lauden's and Bush? Moore showing the paper documents proving it upset you because Moore DID expose it?

 

You should be upset that the news media chooses to hide this information from the general public. That a handful of major corporation control the vast majority of media outlets! Five conglomerates dominate television news. The conglomerates control an estimated two-thirds or more of the programming that appears on prime-time television, including most major news channels and programs.

 

The last thing you should be upset with is that someone was willing to put so much effort into breaking thru this media blockade. You should applaud their efforts!

[IrishEyes]

An estimated 3,000 of Crawford Texas' (home of Bush's ranch) 702 residents came out to watch a showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 blocks from the ranch.

In a strong show of support for their neighbor, a wopping 300 people came out to support Bush!

Er, for those statistically challenged, that is a 10/1 ratio.

Perhaps even Crawford doesn't want this war criminal/ Crook/ Liar back as a permanent resident?

 

Ok, I don't even pretend to be a math person, but could someone please explain this one to me? How could 3,000 of the 702 residents of Crawford come out to see the movie? Or was that the point?

And if you add the 300 that came out to show support, you're left with 3,300 people out of 702. I guess I AM statistically challenged, because that math makes no sense to me.

 

But I did notice that of the 702 residents you claim Crawford has, 300 showing up to offer support is not a bad number, statistically speaking. That's about average for percentages, as far as public figures usually go, isn't it? Just a tad under 50%, right?

 

Not that I'm for Bush, mind you. Just looking at your numbers, FreeT.

[Uncle Martin]

I believe Crawford has a population of 3000, 702 went to see the movie, 300 showed up in support of bush. That is the way I interpreted the less than perfect albeit adequate description.

 

Oops!!! FT,... please use accurate terminology.

 

Gotta cover my *** from all directions it seems.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

I spent several nights searching for various websites that provided counterpoints to what Moore had said. In doing so I discovered nothing pointing to any huge mistakes that Moore made in the movie. Instead, it was the small "lies" that each site pointed out.

Yada Yada. Nice trick. Make allowances for the FACTUALITY of Moore's film, but try to instill those nagging little questions about EVERYTHING in it. Was THIS one of the little lies?

 

But let's look at LIES and the lying liars who tell them. Right here.

Originally posted by: FreethinkerSo WHO is lying here? Moore when he used ACTUAL UNEDITTED FOOTAGE of Rice HERSELF saying it? Or this poster when he claimed that Moore EDITTED it "to make her say something when she actually said the opposite"?

</p>

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Here, we see Freethinker making a reference to the quote by Condoleezza Rice, in which she says that there is a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. <u>First off, nobody ever said Moore EDITED Condoleezza Rice's quote</u>. Don't put words in people's mouths, Freethinker.

Hmmmm NOBODY said that Rice's comments were edited? Yet I remember seeing it posted here somewhere!

 

OK, who DID say it?

 

When we go back in this thread, we find this from your first post:

 

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Within Fahrenheit 9/11, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite.

 

I suggest you read what YOU posted before you dare to criticize me for reading and responding to it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Second, "this poster" is referring to me, correct? It was not me who said this but Dave Kopel, whom I quoted.

And as we now KNOW, you didn't even READ it first!

[IrishEyes]

That is the way I interpreted the less than perfect albeit adequate description.

 

Wow. That's just amazing. I'm wondering if you would have had the same response if a different poster had made the same comment?

 

You know, in all fairness, *YOU* might have Unc, but I doubt that anyone else would accept anything "less than perfect" as an "adequate description".

[Uncle Martin]

Well aren't you just in one helluva mood? I was trying to be nice. GEEZ!!!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Originally posted by: Freethinker"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."

 

This IS A LIE! It is THAT SIMPLE!

 

It's not a lie unless taken out of context. One must read the entire quote to understand that Rice was really referring not to concrete but ideological connections. You must not make an *** out of U and ME by assuming something from only the given information. This is what Michael Moore wants.

 

tHE transcript:

 

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."

 

 

We start with a very specific statement

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11

Does anyone not understand exactly what is said here? Is it in the least bit vague or arbitrary? Open for question in any regard?

 

But they know it will be tested for truth AFTERWARDS, so they better put in some fine print

It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11,

And now they won't even admit this much! But now they increase the connection

if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred

Yep, back to the specific CAUSE of 9/11, make sure that thought is front and center in the listeners mind! Who caused 9/11, who caused 9/11?

that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.

Even better, bring in images of the Towers collapsing and people jumping 100 floors! They LOVE using it for PR!And WHO is this extreme evil? This GROUP that caused 9/11?

This is a great terrorist

TERRORIST? SINGULAR? Now what SINGULAR PERSON reference were we just talking about?

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11

and that would mean WHOM?

 

Oh no! they didn't SAY it! And obviously a casual listener would NEVER take the rather obvious subtext being pushed.

 

Now further, this is being stated about the situation in Iraq BEFORE 9/11. It is after all the 9/11 hearings. Now remember, 9/11 was spearheaded by someone from Saudi Arabia who's family is ultra-rich Saudi Royalty and has long time business relations with G W Bush. That 17 of 19 of the pilots were from Saudi Arabia. The planning and center of operations was Afganastan. Iraq meanwhile is a SECULAR country which bin Lauden condemned and actively promoted it's people to rebel agains Saddam! Iraq is considered an ENEMY of the Taliban. So what are we TOLD instead?

And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front

Incredible!

 

Of course AFTER we took over, Iraq has NOW become what it was furthest from before, a center of Al Quida activity.

 

So what was the intended message from above?

 

"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is t

[IrishEyes]

Well aren't you just in one helluva mood? I was trying to be nice. GEEZ!!!

 

My Dear Unc,

Please accept my sincere and humble apologies.

you are right, I AM in a helluva mood, but that is not YOUR fault.

I should not have insinuated that you would be anything but fair, regardless of WHO did the posting. You have rarely shown yourself to be anything less than an amazing Moderator, much better than I am, that's for sure! I'm just a bit touchy. Not feeling so well thinking about the dish of humble pie I'm going to have to eat soon.

Again, I'm sorry, my venom should not have been used on you.

Irish

[Uncle Martin]

No apology necessary,...I am in one of those moods myself. One heck of a monday.

 

Goodnight,..."see" you tomorrow.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Originally posted by: Freethinkerthe idiot child, Shrub, has made it clear that he does not READ anything. Never reads the newspaper, or releases. He just listens to what his buddies tell him. From the transcript of Bush's interview with Brit Hume...

</p>

The next thing Freethinker goes on to claim is that Bush is wrong for not reading the newspaper. The quote he provides was supposed to prove that Bush does not ever read his PDBs,

NOTICE *I* did not say PDBs ANYWHERE! Once more it is Morpheus that is just outright "putting words in others mouths".

 

But let's look at even this further.Is Morpheus at all concerned that the Resident of the WHite House doesn't even bother to read the newspaper? Or ANY source of information except as spoken to him by hand picked advisors! You don't find such utter lack of interest in current events disturbing?

but Bush does not mention PDBs at all here and is referring only to public news sources. Perhaps Freethinker knows more than I about a day in the life of the President, but am I wrong in supposing that Bush would not have the time to read all the important news stories each morning?

Open mouth, insert foot!

 

Yes we SHOULD expect that the most powerful man in the world would at least be curious enough to read a SINGLE PAGE BRIEFING of THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS each day! It would be an incredible concept of Bush not even bothering to read ONE PAGE A DAY!

 

Hear no evil, read no evil, speak drivel

 

Bush's press conference shows just how ill-informed he is about Iraq

 

Sidney Blumenthal

Thursday April 15, 2004

The Guardian

 

Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission.

 

"I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1192218,00.html

 

We have no need to continue to rip your nonsense apart line by line anymore. You have not even come close to anything truthful yet. And I see nothing while reading ahead that would change that assertion.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Ok, I don't even pretend to be a math person, but could someone please explain this one to me? How could 3,000 of the 702 residents of Crawford come out to see the movie? Or was that the point?

YES IRISH, that was the joke...

 

Jokes are spoiled when you have to explain them! :-)

But I did notice that of the 702 residents you claim Crawford has, 300 showing up to offer support is not a bad number, statistically speaking. That's about average for percentages, as far as public figures usually go, isn't it? Just a tad under 50%, right?

 

Not that I'm for Bush, mind you. Just looking at your numbers, FreeT.

WHO'S numbers are you looking at?

 

Why did you ASSUME that all 300 were from town? Maybe only 5 townspeople and 295 outoftowners?

 

Yes you ARE statistically challenged and NO they aren't MY numbers you were twisting so badly!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

I believe Crawford has a population of 3000, 702 went to see the movie, 300 showed up in support of bush. That is the way I interpreted the less than perfect albeit adequate description.

Nope Irish got it right.

 

The town's pop is 702, But the showing brought in people from all over. Not just all over Texas either. Other states even. I never saw numbers on how many of the townspeople saw it.

[Freethinker]

Hey we had a HC and didn't even know it!

[Uncle Martin]

I stand corrected,... and bow in the presence of Irish' greatness.

[wisdumn]

with full intent of giving the author(Mr. Moore) credit when we are finished, a friend of mine and myself have been working on a song in which we have taken samples from fahrenheit and placed them throughout the song, it's very interesting to say the least. i would like to say that i fully support any reasoned or un-reasoned bious against that hillbilly presiDunce we have playing the role of our fearless leader. bious, bious, and bious some more, 'cause just like dick gephardt said, do you really want a guy in office that has lost OVER 30 million american jobs in only a 4 yr. term?" - by the way that's more jobs lost in 1 term than the last 11 presidents combined so-- bious, bious,bious- throw caution to the wind and let's just see if "switching horses mid-stream" might just not be such a bad ride after all, it certainly couldn't be much worse than the last 4 yrs. and just in case MR. Bushwhacker happens to read hypography posts- thank you Mr. Presidunce for your last 4 yrs. of serving greatness, i've never been so poor or disgusted in all my life. your humble servant -wisdumn