So, is there anyone who's seen F9/11 that can still defend Bush?

[trotsky]

I realize few DUers would ever want or need to defend that Texas Turd.

And it's obvious very few freepers will even bother contaminating their minds with information contrary to what Rush tells them to think.

But does anyone have any stories about center-right types who saw F9/11, and tried to defend Bush? I would REALLY like to know what kind of incredible spinning one would need to do.

[brainshrub]

1. Try this site:

www.moorewatch.com

But I don't see them refuting any of the main points of the film.

I am looking forward to a point-by-point refutation of the film.

[trotsky]

5. LOL

Oh, that site is rich.

Here's how he addresses the 7 minutes of Bush inaction:

He wasn’t reading the book, he wasn’t even paying attention to it or the children. He sat there, engrossed in thought, for seven minutes. Now, considering that he had just been told that America was under attack, I don’t think that spending seven minutes contemplating your next move is all that inappropriate a thing to do.

"Engrossed in thought"??? About what, diggin' up bugs? I can't take anything else this idiot says seriously, if he really thinks that sitting there, precious seconds ticking away while TWO MORE hijacked planes are still in the air, plotting what you think you should do (hello, advisors, anyone?) is a reasonable explanation.

LMAO, thanks for the link.

[lanparty]

9. Nothing to refute ...

F911 is mostly a bunch of facts strung together with a little interpretation from Moore.

In a way, it picks up where "Bowling for Columbine" left off. The thesis is still the same. We live in a society of engineered fear. Moore also does a nice job of tying it in with Orwells 1984. The purpose of war isn't victory against either Eurasia or Eastasia. The purpose is the preservation of a hierarchical society.


But here is a nice blurb from this guys site:

Most of the people watching Moore’s film tonight will undoubtedly take a similar tone towards this film. Since they are most likely not politics or news junkies they lack the information necessary to formulate any kind of a reasonable counter-argument, which is why Moore’s tricks and omissions are going to be effective.

What this guy fails to realize is that Moore's film consists largely of previous ommisions. This is the shit that the Bush administration didnt' WANT you too see. Their case has been trumpted and blared from the rooftop for countless months. Moore's movie is the response. And somehow, I doubt access to Fox and CNN is limited to a select few capable of operating a remote control.

Here is another blurb:

Right before showing Bush addressing the nation to inform them that the Iraq offensive had begun he shows us these pastoral scenes of life in Baghdad. Not once does he show (or even mention) the crimes of Saddam Hussein. In Moore’s world Saddam was a harmless puppy, unless of course it’s in the context of Rumsfeld meeting him in 1983, in which case he was a dangerous madman.

Again, the same tortured logic is used. Somehow he expects Moore who is responding to countless hours of news bombarding us with the "Hussein is a bloodthirsty monster" line to repeat it. It's like accusing a tornado expert of being deceiptful because he fails to mention that the sky is often blue and clear. It's a well known assertion. It doesn't NEED to be repeated. Somehow pointing out an exception to what you think the sky SHOULD be viewed as is considered "biased" in these people's books.

Then he suggests that Moore is a "glass half empty" guy. He only has criticism for Bush. He has no suggestions:

My main criticism of the film is, ironically, exactly the same criticism I had of BFC. Moore is quick to point out what Bush shouldn’t have done, but never says what he things Bush should have. For example, take the scene in the school. Should Bush have jumped up and run screaming from the room? Should he have run in the back room and ordered a nuclear strike against Afghanistan? If Moore is so horrified that Bush spent seven minutes thinking things over, why can’t he suggest what Bush should have done at that moment? Moore also never suggests what Bush’s response to the 9/11 attacks should have been, and this is the movie’s biggest weakness. If Afghanistan was invaded to get a pipeline built, and Iraq was for the oil and to enrich the defense industry, then what should the appropriate response have been? Moore doesn’t dare to suggest an alternate plan of action.

Well isn't it obvious. When you know a plane has smashed into the World Trade Center, cancel your photo-op and do your job. When you hear the second tower is struck, DON'T STAY. No one suggested that he use a panicked dash and run like the sky is falling. Everyone should have learned by now how to politely excuse themselves from the room because they had to pee. Couldn't he use the same skills. Moore's suggestion is obvious, DON'T STAY!!! As for negotiating a pipeline with an organization who was harboring the bomber of two African embassies and the Cole, the suggestion is very clear DON'T MAKE THE DEAL!!!!!

As for taking more vacation than ANY other president, the suggestion is very clear. DON'T TAKE SO MUCH FUCKING VACATION. DO THE JOB THAT THE PEOPLE (SUPREME COURT) HAVE HIRED YOU TO DO!!!!

The problem is, that Bush doesn't see the Presiden't job as pooring through documents and managing various government affairs. Like Reagan, he thinks being president is like being a shmoozing CEO who gladhands important folk and plays nice for cameras. What we have is a set of dissimilar values. To us, George Bush's job on 9/11 was to call generals and make sure our country was defended. To George, his job was to look pretty for the cameras and project an "aura" that would re-assure us that we were being protected.

This guy is a paid loon of the right. People's criticisms of Moore are downright laughable. They can't point out any factual errors so they go back to their old "bias" argument. Moore doesn't say the things that are being shouted by the news network. He says the things they DO NOT say. Therefore, he's biased.

These people are kooks. And the type who patronizes right wing web-sites are self-deceivers. They get enough of that blather from the networks and Fox News, anybody seeking more from the internet is a real nutjob and beyond reason. I'm honestly not concerned about these people.

[lanparty]

11. One more MooreWatch Watch

Check out this line:

Remember the two burnouts that were sitting to my left? When the film was over and the credits rolling, the young man who had just failed the 12th grade turned to his friend and said, “Man, our president is a fucking idiot, yo!” It seems that the master had reached the pupils, even one who just failed his senior year of high school.

So hear this guy goes cherry picking. I common symptom of the right. Yeah, any barrel has bad apples. In this case, he uses Stoned-men instead of strawmen. But the effect is the same. He builds up a couple shaggy ingorant naredowell teens and then puts the label "Moore's target audience" on their lapels.

I'm sorry Mr. Dipwad. But I don't smoke pot and I graduated college. I'm not a straw man. Please come try to knock ME down.

[Tosca]

2. That's simple

Michael Moore is a left-wing loony who tells lies about our great leader.

[ljm2002]

3. Apparently so...

... I watched MTP this morning and the black woman reporter (sorry, I don't watch often enough to know who everyone is) said words to this effect: "I watched it and as a journalist, I have to say it wasn't journalism. The facts were presented in a way of guilt by association . He is much better in showing the human cost of the war."

Okay, she wasn't directly supporting Bush, but she was strongly implying that Moore was being intellectually dishonest with his presentation of the business ties to the Saudis.

[GoldenOldie]

7. "... and as a journalist...I...it wasn't journalism."?????????

Her statement is hilarious because it ties in perfectly with Michael Moore reflects in the movie and his statements during his interviews that the American media has not been doing their jobs. Where was she during the 2000 election when thousands of African Americans votes were ignored???? Where was she when millions of protestors took to the streets against this war??? Where was she when they passed the Patriot Act without any of our "representatives," reading it?????
Where was she when they passed all these bills (unread) for taxes, increased budget funding for Iraq, billions of dollar, no-bid contracts going to Halliburton with no accountability, etc., etc., etc. She along with those that pass themselves off a jounalists are the problem not a part of the solution. Can anyone take these talking heads seriously??????

[lanparty]

10. Conflict of interest

The implications with pappy Bush were VERY clear. He was trading influence for money. That's NOT guilt by association.

The fact that the Bush admin blacked out the congressional 9/11 report regarding Saudi Arabia is NOT guilt by association. He's pointing out that the Bush family is chummy with the Saudis. The SAUDIS have been funding terrorism. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were SAUDIS. Yet for some reason Dubaya is trying to protect the Saudis instead of investigating them ... HMMMMMM...... CONFLICT OF INTEREST!!!!! Oh yeah, and the Saudis bailed Dubaya out of every business fiasco he was involved with.

So clearly we see a pattern that Dubaya owes more to the Saudis then he does to the American people.

Finally, the right has been getting away with "guilt by association" for quite some time. And it's NOT necessarily irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they don't WANT the American people to know that they are buddies with the Bin Ladin boys. They don't WANT the American people to know that they were negotiating with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghanistan.

The Bush administration droles on and on about how EVIL the Taliban were. Yet that evil didn't stop them from negotiating with the Taliban. Nor did Saddams evil stop Dick Cheney from doing business with Iraq. This part isn't guilt by association. It's pointing out FLAGRANT HYPOCRISY by the Bush administration!!!!!

[Sporadicus]

4. Film Doesn't Lie

Getting past whatever preconceptions a viewer has about Michael Moore and his agenda, the viewer is confronted with incontrovertible evidence of the amorality and sociopathology of 'great leader.'

[Still_Loves_John]

6. Tucker Carlson was outraged,

outraged I tell you, that Moore could be so duplicious in his film making. I hate how sanctimonious he is.

[lanparty]

8. Is Mississippi still part of the Union ...

Honestly, Bush didn't go into have of the Bush problems. But some people choose to bury their head in the sand. Some people are paid to.

It's still financially beneficial to believe all that nonsense. And all those narcissists out their who fancy themselves as "superior" people will still back the administration that strokes their ego while picking their pocket.