Jeb Bush backpedals on Iraq war answer

[Jack T. Cross]

You enjoy the thought of "gun-control", bears?

[Jack T. Cross]

...and what about that meeting?

[bears]

...and what about that meeting?

did you watch the documentary?  watch it.  and then come back and tell me what you think he was implying. 

oh and he also was very adamant whenever he was asked about verifying his facts that his documentary was "just a movie meant for entertainment."  Thereby avoiding the burden of ever having to defend any of his bullshit.

it was a sleazy underhanded documentary.  PERIOD.

[bears]

You enjoy the thought of "gun-control", bears?

honestly, I don't have a good answer to the gun control issue.  I just don't know how to solve the problems we have with guns in this country. 

The way I see it, both sides are right and both sides are wrong.  I know its a total copout but it's all I got.  it's a really tough issue.

[Jack T. Cross]

sorry but I saw it too.  and yes that was exactly what he was implying.  he just made sure that he technically did not directly accuse GWB or the Bush family of planning 9/11 but everything he said in that documentary implied that was the case.

but you're right he never technically directly accused them.  he just put a bunch of random factoids (most of which were just plain false) together that painted that picture and let the viewer draw his or her own conclusions.  And he knew exactly what the conclusions a normal person would make after seeing that piece of garbage.

and to put it into perspective, I really liked "Bowling for Columbine".  I thought that, with the exception of his ambush of an elderly and slow Charlton Heston, was a great documentary that made some very poignant points about guns in America.  More importantly the difference between guns in America and other countries. 

Is this your way of saying that a specific meeting wasn't mentioned, bears?



At the very least, can you describe the connection Moore tried to make between Bush and the other?

[Jack T. Cross]

did you watch the documentary?  watch it.  and then come back and tell me what you think he was implying. 

oh and he also was very adamant whenever he was asked about verifying his facts that his documentary was "just a movie meant for entertainment."  Thereby avoiding the burden of ever having to defend any of his bullshit.

it was a sleazy underhanded documentary.  PERIOD.

No, I would rather slam my dick in a car door than watch it, because I know he can't be trusted. I'm interested in what specific thing or things caused you to come to the conclusions that you did. That's why I ask.

[bears]

Is this your way of saying that a specific meeting wasn't mentioned, bears?



At the very least, can you describe the connection Moore tried to make between Bush and the other?

I'm cutting and pasting from a synopsis of the lies Michael Moore told in his documentary and the rebuttals.

•Conspiracy theories abound about the reasons for the War on Terror, but none is more outlandish than the one propagandized in Moore’s film: that the Afghan war was fought solely to enable the Unocal company to build an oil pipeline (the plan for which was abandoned by the company in 1998).

•Moore “suggests that one of the first official acts of Afghan President Hamid Karzai … was to help seal a deal for … Unocal to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. It alleges that Karzai had been a Unocal consultant.” (emphasis added) (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

•Unocal spokesman, Barry Lane, says unequivocally, “Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant,” and Unocal never had a plan to build a Caspian Sea pipeline. (Sumana Chatterjee and David Golstein, “Analyzing ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’: It’s Accurate To A Degree,” Seattle Times, 07/05/04)

•Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while President Bush was governor to discuss a potential project with Unocal.

•While Moore implies that then-Governor Bush met with the Taliban, no such meeting occurred. The Taliban delegation did, however, meet with the Clinton Administration on this visit. (Matt Labash, “Un-Moored From Reality; Fahrenheit 9/11 Connects Dots That

[bears]

No, I would rather slam my dick in a car door than watch it, because I know he can't be trusted. I'm interested in what specific thing or things caused you to come to the conclusions that you did. That's why I ask.

•Not revealing relevant facts is dishonest enough. But to paint the Bush Administration as sympathetic and friendly to the Taliban prior to September 11, is not only dishonest, but maliciously so. ü Moore shows film of a March 2001 visit to the United States by a Taliban delegation, claiming that the Administration “welcomed” the Taliban official, Sayed Hashemi, “to tour the United States to help improve the image of the Taliban.”
•But the Administration did not welcome the Taliban with open arms. In fact, the State Department rejected the Taliban’s claim that it had complied with U.S. requests to isolate bin Laden.

•To demonstrate even further the Administration’s contempt for the Taliban and its illegitimacy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – on the day of the terrorist regime’s visit – said, “We don’t recognize any government in Afghanistan.”

he wanted the viewer's imagination to run wild with these factoids.  and they did.  Fahrenheit 9-11 gave birth to thousands of truthers.  because of misinformation like this.  he knew the conclusions his liberal fan base would make.  and he spoon fed it to them.

[Jack T. Cross]

So as for the meeting to "plan 911", was it said the meeting about Unocal concerns (oil) was just a cover for that? Still trying to figure out the "meeting" part you mentioned.

[Jack T. Cross]

The only thing clear about F-911 is how unclear it is.

If anything, I'd say he set out to dull peoples' senses and cause them to be uninterested and unconerned about the subject. That's his way.

[Jack T. Cross]

...so no need to answer, bears. It's pretty plain you didn't really watch it (even if you were looking at a screen when it was on). You had to find a copy/paste to reply. That's my point.

[Jack T. Cross]

BTW, there's a technique used by certain schmucks, in which true and false things are mixed into some overall statement. It's one way to "play" a maximum number of people, as a person will tend toward confirming existing ideas instead of challenging them. You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains.

That deceptive superficiality is what big-media is all about, coincidentally or not, so you can see why a guy like Moore is so well-supported by them. (After all, he isn't known for making memorable documentaries, obviously. So exactly WHAT is he doing?)

[Jack T. Cross]

You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains

And in the case of MM, you won't remember a thing. He should be a surgeon or something.

[240 is Back]

So as for the meeting to "plan 911", was it said the meeting about Unocal concerns (oil) was just a cover for that? Still trying to figure out the "meeting" part you mentioned.

there was no meeting.

[Jack T. Cross]

there was no meeting.

Just one giant clusterfuck of a movie, exactly as it was meant to be. If you want to go with it, he'll give you the ammo. If you want to go against it, he'll give you the ammo.

He's a flake, making movies for flakes.

[Jack T. Cross]

Hadn't quite made the connection before, between Moore's style and the media. I knew there was something there, but it took this thread to see it in a certain way. Really have to love getbig, 

[bears]

...so no need to answer, bears. It's pretty plain you didn't really watch it (even if you were looking at a screen when it was on). You had to find a copy/paste to reply. That's my point.

dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago.  you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up.  what was he trying to say?

[bears]

BTW, there's a technique used by certain schmucks, in which true and false things are mixed into some overall statement. It's one way to "play" a maximum number of people, as a person will tend toward confirming existing ideas instead of challenging them. You're giving people what they want, if they'll just turn off their pesky brains.

That deceptive superficiality is what big-media is all about, coincidentally or not, so you can see why a guy like Moore is so well-supported by them. (After all, he isn't known for making memorable documentaries, obviously. So exactly WHAT is he doing?)

you're pretty much saying exactly what i'm saying.  But i'm saying based upon the movie i saw, he wanted the viewer to take his facts and to believe that there was some collusion going on between Bush and the Taliban because of big oil interests, specifically a proposed pipeline.  And it was all bullshit. 
 
and no he made a few very good documentaries.  he is a talented dude.  but then he earned his stripes with the liberal left and figured out that he could pretty much make them believe anything he wanted.  so he sold out to pandering for the left, and made a shit ton of $$ doing it. 

[bears]

dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago.  you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up.  what was he trying to say?

and Michael Moore films his documentaries in a way that whatever someone writes here I can refute it by saying, "well he didn't exactly say that.  he just said X,Y, and Z."

[Jack T. Cross]

dude go a little easy on me I saw it like 10 fucking years ago.  you tell me what conclusions you think he wanted the viewer to draw and i'll shut up.  what was he trying to say?

He wants to reinforce whatever conclusion the person already took before he/she ever set eyes on the movie. If the person believes Americans were involved, he'll give the person something to support it. If the person believes that no Americans would dare and it's tinfoil-city to say otherwise, he'll give you something to support that, too. If the person is undecided and reserves opinion, he will do everything possible to cloud the issue further.

And if the person manages to make it through the movie without going brain-dead, he/she will probably never want to hear another word about the subject. That's probably the conclusion he'd most want people to have.

[Jack T. Cross]

you're pretty much saying exactly what i'm saying.  But i'm saying based upon the movie i saw, he wanted the viewer to take his facts and to believe that there was some collusion going on between Bush and the Taliban because of big oil interests, specifically a proposed pipeline.  And it was all bullshit. 
 
and no he made a few very good documentaries.  he is a talented dude.  but then he earned his stripes with the liberal left and figured out that he could pretty much make them believe anything he wanted.  so he sold out to pandering for the left, and made a shit ton of $$ doing it. 

So when it comes to the people who'd find out there's false information in it: what conclusions do you suppose he might've expected from them?

[Jack T. Cross]

...because he certainly couldn't have planned that it wouldn't be fact-checked by many people, right?

[bears]

...because he certainly couldn't have planned that it wouldn't be fact-checked by many people, right?

"But it's just a movie made for entertainment purposes.  I didn't accuse anyone of anything.  I was just stating some facts."

[Jack T. Cross]

"But it's just a movie made for entertainment purposes.  I didn't accuse anyone of anything.  I was just stating some facts."

So he permits information that will cause him to have to make that statement.

Why do you suppose he would do that?

[Jack T. Cross]

Did a bit of reading on this, and the F911 idea seems to be that the problem was an "incompetent" administration led by an incompetent person. That's the representation. Here's something common from a movie review, seen in several reviews:

Perhaps the most damaging footage shows Bush on September 11, sitting in a Florida classroom for a full seven minutes after he had been told that the second tower had been struck, and that it was clear the horrific events in New York were a terrorist attack, not a tragic accident. Moore lets this moment go on and on: The president of the United States, stone-faced in front of dozens of schoolchildren, doing absolutely nothing, as our nation comes under attack.