|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 13, 2004 15:03:35 GMT -5
Satire, shin...relax.
That makes it IMpersonal and UNinsulting.
Alrighty then...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 13, 2004 17:18:03 GMT -5
To correct the misunderstanding of this, where I wrote: "BUT, I'm still not going to buy into the Moore/shin screed of "behind- EVERY-maneuver-there's-been-a-horrible-acquisitive- self-involved-conspiracy"... the same FAR overly simplistic 'War-for-OIL' shriek( times 10), which I've seen SEVERAL(incl you, yes)from the 'other side' here say repeatedly, convinced apparently, that it was a non-issue...or a side-issue, along with the absurd 'You're the man who wanted ta shoot muh Paw, stranger....now DRAW!'..." Oh, OK, I see what you mean now rocdoc. Sorry, I really did misread that, I just hadn't understood whta "that it was a non-issue" was referring to the first time I read it. So, yeah, we're cool there. I'm curious, though, if you think that the left is particularly vulnerable to simple-minded understanding of events or manipulation from above (by celebrities or politicians or whoever). Or would you just worry that people in general, on whatever side of the aisle, or too easily manipulated? Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by melon1 on Jul 13, 2004 18:28:03 GMT -5
I'm curious, though, if you think that the left is particularly vulnerable to simple-minded understanding of events or manipulation from above (by celebrities or politicians or whoever). Or would you just worry that people in general, on whatever side of the aisle, or too easily manipulated?
Well, Mary, FWIW, I'll give you my take on that question. Although there are quite a few of those on the right who STILL think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, I think the percentage of those on the left who believe everything Michael Moore says is higher. I don't have anyway of proving this. It is simpy my belief. I remember after the 2000 election you commenting that the belief that somehow Jeb Bush had something to do with Bush's victory over Gore in Florida was "laughable". But to that I pose this question: Being that a New York Times/ CBS News poll of Black New Yorkers in 1990 found that 10% agreed that AIDS "was deliberately created in a laboratory in order to infect black people," another 19% thought that "it might possibly be true," and 25% of blacks agreed that the government "deliberately makes sure that drugs are easily available in poor black neighborhoods," while another 35% said that it was possibly true, what percentage of blacks in this country if asked if they believed if Jeb Bush had something to do with GWB winning Florida in the 2000 election would agree or say that it was quite possible(ok, that was the biggest run-on sentence ever)? And add to that the propogandization of movies and TV in the last 14 including 8 years of Clinton-defending spinsters. That question is given because 85% of blacks in America vote Democrat, down from 90% in 2000. 5% got sick of the Democrats and joined the Repubs or other parties. I heard Dick Morris say that on Fox News anyway. But let's not play games here. How much of the left eats propoganda like cheeseburgers? Do you honestly think there is as much of it on the right as there is on the left?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 14, 2004 4:54:37 GMT -5
Although there are quite a few of those on the right who STILL think that Saddam had something to do with 9/11… Which might have something to do with the fact that your president and vice president keep telling them that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda… …I think the percentage of those on the left who believe everything Michael Moore says is higher. News for you, Melon – you don’t necessarily have to be on the left to be receptive to Moore to some degree. Huge distinction between being receptive and believing everything he says, of course, but some of the most interesting comments I’ve seen about Fahrenheit 9/11, for example, come from the centre/right of the spectrum. British general Michael Rose, for instance: A British General's View of Fahrenheit 9/11General Sir Michael Rose The Daily Mail July 1, 2004 I suspect many soldiers serving in Iraq today will find Michael Moore's film intensely irritating. This is because for much of the film he allows his antiwar, anti-Bush and anti-big business stance to obscure the important debate: whether President George W. Bush led his country - and by default the UK - into war in Iraq on a lie and whether subsequently, in trying to impose justice, freedom and democracy on the Iraqi people by force, the Americans became so violent and brutal themselves that they lost the moral high ground for ever. Nevertheless, Moore has mounted a powerful protest against the Bush administration, in which he uses all the tricks of the skilled polemicist - ridicule, conspiracy theory and sensationalism. He shows terrible images of dead and dying civilians and soldiers in Iraq. He interviews U.S. soldiers both in Iraq and in hospital in America who question why they went to Iraq 'to kill innocent civilians', and he intrudes closely on the grief of an American mother who lost her son. I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader. For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. The message is clear. Here is no Roosevelt, Churchill or Thatcher, but a deeply inadequate man whose mind is frozen with indecision and fear. It is a look I know well - if he had been a subordinate commander in battle I would have immediately relieved him of his command. What emerges from this film is that America is unlikely ever to attempt such a disastrous military adventure again. The trust of many of the American people in their leadership is destroyed and the all-volunteer Army in Iraq has run out of steam. It is now heavily dependent on the reservists who are taking much of the strain of operations in Iraq. Many of these young people only joined the army to obtain funding for their university education. They never expected to be sent overseas for such a prolonged period of time, and - if Moore's film is a true reflection of American opinion - they will not allow themselves to be so badly misled again. Looking beyond Moore's sensationalism, I think that his underlying message is nonetheless valid. The war in Iraq was immoral and it has caused some Americans to behave in an immoral way themselves. Meanwhile, the wider war on terror is being lost. Fact or fiction, everyone should see this film. I, for one, support Moore's protest. www.ozlanka.com/jul04/9-11.htm |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 14, 2004 6:20:55 GMT -5
Which might have something to do with the fact that your president and vice president keep telling them that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda… OR that liberal Canandians keep on insisting that they keep telling them that ...  |
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 14, 2004 8:03:15 GMT -5
The message is clear. Here is no Roosevelt, Churchill or Thatcher, but a deeply inadequate man whose mind is frozen with indecision and fear. It is a look I know well - if he had been a subordinate commander in battle I would have immediately relieved him of his command.
Yes... I thought that was a particularly revealing section, especially given Dubya's claim that he is a "war president".
I, for one, enjoyed Moore's movie, and that doesn't mean I took at face value everything he says in it, and I was also aware that I was being manipulated by Moore's skilful cutting and production - even down to the brilliantly chosen soundtrack - on an emotional level often during the movie. Moore was reaching past the intellect on several occasions, so I'm wary of commenting further prior to going away and having a long think about it.
But this much I can say with confidence... no-one should slag off F9/11 (or Moore personally on the basis of this release) without having watched the fucking film.
|
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 14, 2004 8:07:45 GMT -5
I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader.
For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
So GWB wasn't told about these 3 separate distinct events(tho this Sir Rose doesn't mention the PA 'Let's Roll' plane)until after all 3 had happened? IS this true?
And presuming that it wasn't until after tower 1, tower 2 and the Pentagon ALL had been crashed into, one by one over a span of what, 45 minutes(I honestly can't remember, possibly it was even longer), what does Sir Rose expect the nation's president to actually act-out in front of a group of schoolchildren?
What does he consider to be the proper 'act' in such an instance I'd like to know....
Thanks for adjudging what will 'utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have', Sir Mr General...Moore's done the job on HIM at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 14, 2004 8:25:17 GMT -5
I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader.
For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.So GWB wasn't told about these 3 separate distinct events(tho this Sir Rose doesn't mention the PA 'Let's Roll' plane)until after all 3 had happened? IS this true? And presuming that it wasn't until after tower 1, tower 2 and the Pentagon ALL had been crashed into, one by one over a span of what, 45 minutes(I honestly can't remember, possibly it was even longer), what does Sir Rose expect the nation's president to actually act-out in front of a group of schoolchildren? What does he consider to be the proper 'act' in such an instance I'd like to know.... Thanks for adjudging what will 'utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have', Sir Mr General...Moore's done the job on HIM at least. I am assuming that the video in question here is the tape of Bush right after Andy Card whispered in his ear in the classroom? If so, this is inaccurate -- Card told him that the second tower had been hit and that "America is under attack". This occured before the Pentagon was hit. Not sure that matters anyway. The question of whether or not Bush did the right thing staying in that classroom can be debated until the end of time. I personally think it's one of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" things that any president faces. Had he immediately stood up and left the room, he'd be criticized (by Moore probably) for giving off an image of panic. After all, he was criticzed for exactly that when he didn't overrule the secret service and demand to go back to Washington immediately. And by staying there, he's criticized for not taking action fast enough. Let's be honest -- was Bush truly still listening to the kids read at that point? Further, could planes have been scrambled in time to shoot down the plane that hit the Pentagon if only they'd had that extra seven minutes? Honestly, we'll never know that, but I doubt it would have made a difference. So what good does it do to declare that hindsight is better than the view during the fog of war ... which at least to me is pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 14, 2004 8:43:31 GMT -5
I know one thing's for sure, we're all fucked.
Let's get drunk and play ping pong!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 14, 2004 9:42:47 GMT -5
The question of whether or not Bush did the right thing staying in that classroom can be debated until the end of time. I personally think it's one of the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" things that any president faces. Had he immediately stood up and left the room, he'd be criticized (by Moore probably) for giving off an image of panic. It’s difficult to discuss this with those of you who won’t see the film because you really do need to experience the sequence in question to really get a full sense of what the general is getting at – how long the (I believe it was) seven minutes feels; the look on Bush’s face, etc. etc. Aside from all that, however, on the question of what Bush should have done that morning, I don’t think it’s 'damned if you do, damned if you don’t' at all. Nothing says that the [n]only[/b] way to have left that room was in a way that projected an image of panic. It would really have depended on how he and his entourage carried themselves. And seriously, can you imagine Margaret Thatcher, say, or Tony Blair having been told that the nation is under attack and just sitting there? Reagan? Clinton? G.H.W. Bush? What does he consider to be the proper 'act' in such an instance I'd like to know.... I think you have to remember, General Rose is a man who has led men in battle – he was in command of an SAS regiment that fought in the Falklands War. When he says, "It is a look I know well," he means it quite literally. He’s unforgiving certainly, but considering the circumstances under consideration, you can see why. |
|
|
|
Post by RocDoc on Jul 14, 2004 9:57:27 GMT -5
The General's experience was only with battle-ready military men as well....if he supposedly judged THEM and their responses/facial expressions incredibly well, then great.
I feel that that has little bearing on how ANY of our presidents need to be judged by him in such a crisis, being FAR moreso 'diplomats' than soldiers....
Gee, why didn't they have a camera trained on FDR on 12/7/19441941?
ed. you guys knew what I meant dincha?
I doubt that Michael Moore or the good General there would have found HIS first 5 minutes dramatic enough either.
The television/video age makes for great micro-analysis for just about anyone who wishes to buttress an opinion of ANY sort of weakness on someone.
Hang around with a camera trained long enough on someone, you WILL find something to 'embarass' them. Even IF it takes framing it just so....Moore's forte.
Nah, I really do not think that I need to see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 10:25:24 GMT -5
I saw the film.
And although I can actually sympathize with Chrisfan's viewpoint of being "damned if you don't, damned if you do", I think Drum said it perfectly when he posted "you really do need to experience the sequence in question to really get a full sense of what the general is getting at – how long the (I believe it was) seven minutes feels; the look on Bush’s face, etc. etc.", up above.
There is a distinct air of cluelessness about our current President that no amount of "beating around the Bush" can provide better than merely studying the man's facial expressions and body language. There is no alertness to him. No sense of being on his toes.
As a matter of fact, there is a sense of quite the opposite. A sense of having to be "onstage", to look the part, to dress nice, to smile for the cameras.
I have to admit that I can't say I feel justified laying the blame entirely on him, seeing as how he appears to be nothing more than a figurehead who's primary job is to appease the public's sense of need for a Leader, a "man in charge".
The question I have is....if he isn't truly "in charge"....then, pray tell: who is-?
I believe the answer to that question is simply: his father.
And I believe that I am not incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Jul 14, 2004 11:47:39 GMT -5
I hope I never see objection to rhetorical evidence again after reading the past few posts ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 13:22:22 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, my opinion is valuable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 14, 2004 13:23:42 GMT -5
...As are all of the rest of yours'. We each possess our own unique, and valuable, insights into all this shit. Even you, Chrisfan  |
|
