Fahrenheit 9/11 coming 6/25

[Rspaight]

But it's ok to blame Clinton?

Blame Clinton? That is another argument entirely.

Had Gore been in office, I wonder if Moore would still be doing this film.

Since Gore isn't deep in bed with the Saudi royal family and probably wouldn't have pursued Bush's insane Iraq policy, I'd guess he wouldn't be doing this exact film.

But if 9/11 had happened in a Gore administration, I'm sure Moore would do a film about it. He's well to the left of Gore, and was hardly one of Clinton's biggest fans. (Hence his support for the shortsighted, egomanic Nader.)

Ryan

[Matt]

What do you mean? Are you saying it is ok? Plenty has said by the right about how 9/11 was all Clinton's fault, yet it happened under Bush's watch, and there were clearly things he could have done but didn't that possibly could have helped (strengthening cockpit doors, for example).

Many things could have been done beforehand. This will just end up going back to the failure of 8 months vs the failure of 8 years argument.

Is half of what Moore says over the top and/or stretching the truth. You bet. That doesn't mean he's necessarily wrong, though.

Half of what Moore says? Probably most of what he says.

I find it somewhat interesting that when people attack Moore it's often along the lines of "he really was never working class, he's just another elite liberal". Is there some inherent problem is being elite? The Bushes are certainly elite. The beloved Reagan was elite. Wasn't Clinton attacked for being somewhat of a "country boy"?

I haven't heard that critisism often at all of Moore.

[Matt]

BTW, as for Gore being in office, we'll never know. We don't know how Gore would have handled things prior to 9/11. We don't know if there would have been a 9/11. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gore doesn't have the same Saudi connections as the Bushes.

Gore prior to 9/11? More than likely the same as the previous administration.

So you are suggesting that 9/11 occured because of Bushes "Saudi connections"?

[Matt]

Last I checked, Moore isn't running for office.

True, but I am positive that the kind of people who enjoy Moore's films will be influenced with Moore's anti-conservative spin (perhaps even more so than they already are).

[lukpac]

Gore prior to 9/11? More than likely the same as the previous administration.

So you're saying there *would* have been a big push to stop terrorism, then? Because evidence seems to suggest at the end of his term Clinton was pushing a plan to thwart bin Laden.

So you are suggesting that 9/11 occured because of Bushes "Saudi connections"?

No.

[lukpac]

Many things could have been done beforehand. This will just end up going back to the failure of 8 months vs the failure of 8 years argument.

Failure of 8 years? No, Clinton didn't have bin Laden, but he didn't ignore him, either. What did Bush do in his 8 months?

I haven't heard that critisism often at all of Moore.

Then I guess you didn't read the link you posted here, because that very argument was posted there:

This is a point I’ve made a hundred times in the past. Michael Moore is not, in any sense of the word, “working class.” He’s a left-wing elitist from a wealthy middle-class family who has never actually held a real working-class job. He’s a professional muckraker and political activist, which in and of itself is fine, but it’s hardly working-class. Working-class people have, at one point in their life, actually held a real nine-to-five job. Mikey worked on the auto assembly line for one whole day. Man of the people, or left-wing elitist with a carefully-crafted slovenly image? You be the judge.

[Matt]

Failure of 8 years? No, Clinton didn't have bin Laden, but he didn't ignore him, either. What did Bush do in his 8 months?

I admit Bush had the same effect in 8 months as Clinton did in 8 years - None.

Then I guess you didn't read the link you posted here, because that very argument was posted there:

That is the only site I can recall that I have heard that specific criticism.

[Matt]

So you're saying there *would* have been a big push to stop terrorism, then?

While I can not say for sure Luke, I feel Bush would have pursued Bin Laden more intensely than Clinton did in the 90's.

[lukpac]

While I can not say for sure Luke, I feel Bush would have pursued Bin Laden more intensely than Clinton did in the 90's.

Based on what? Clinton actually did things about bin Laden and terrorism. What did Bush do before 9/11?

http://www.rememberjohn.com/clintongore.html

http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/17/clinton.terrorism/

[lukpac]

I admit Bush had the same effect in 8 months as Clinton did in 8 years - None.

Again, what are you basing this "none" comment on?

[Matt]

Again, what are you basing this "none" comment on?

Some links:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25717

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102359-9067r.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

[lukpac]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25717

Ignoring the source for the moment, those are valid issues. But saying Clinton didn't do enough doesn't mean he didn't do anything. Far from it.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030901-102359-9067r.htm

Again, putting the source aside briefly, we've heard it all before. It's not as simple as "Clinton didn't want bin Laden". Haven't we been down this road before? Yeah, we have...:

http://forums.lukpac.org/viewtopic.php?t=722

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

Good questions. But again, saying Clinton did nothing is untrue. He *did* try to take out bin Laden. Heck, the fact that these pictures even exist suggests that bin Laden was a serious concern.

[Bennett Cerf]

One of the most peculiar "up is down, down is up" arguments from Bush supporters is that Clinton, who tried to capture/kill Osama bin Laden but failed, somehow did a much worse job of handling the threat of Osama bin Laden than Bush, who also tried to capture/kill Osama bin Laden but has thus far failed.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

[Patrick M]

That is the only site I can recall that I have heard that specific criticism.

From 1997:

[Patrick M]

The Moore the Scarier
By: Debbie Schlussel
March 23, 2003

And Michael Moore should know. Because everything from his "working-class Joe" persona to his so-called documentary, for which he won the award, is largely fictitious. Michael Moore is the master of the truly fictitious.

His public persona is that of an anti-corporate crusader from working-class Flint, Michigan, who wears a constant uniform of slouchy jeans, a plaid shirt and a Detroit Tigers baseball cap. But the real Michael Moore rides in limos and lives in a swanky $1.2 million Manhattan apartment. Moore's "blue collar bonhomie" is bunk.

Liberal Alternative Patriotism
July 2, 2003

For the second year in a row, the festival celebrated the First Amendment, giving its "Freedom of Speech Award" to millionaire leftist Michael Moore, in an event hosted by Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to a president whose IRS audited people who engaged in free speech against him. The executive director of the festival, Stu Smiley, said the purpose of the festival was "to reacquaint ourselves with people who have sacrificed for their right to express themselves."

Liberals' conception of sacrifice is rather broad, including:

* to work for up to three weeks for less than $1 million;
* and to not be showered with praise by Veterans of Foreign Wars while burning the American flag.