So I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11

[Walter Sobchak]

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
you have your Leni Riefenstahl. I won't take that away from you Walt.

To quote Uncle Ronnie, "There you go again." Comparing a Michael Moore movie to propaganda supporting history's most brutally genocidal regime ... if that's equivalent in your mind then you don't have the ability to make serious distinctions and your words and the thoughts behind them are both worthless.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
if that's equivalent in your mind then you don't have the ability to make serious distinctions and your words and the thoughts behind them are both worthless.

You have a point.
It's worth considering whether engaging someone like this in debate is worthwhile.
He never responds topically, so I don't see a reason to continue.

[Jumper Bones]

I for one don't think we live in a liberal country, that we, as a whole, are a totally liberal people. I have an issue with this guy, I have since that speech of his when he accepted his Oscar for Bowling, and I'll be the last person contributing any of my money to him.

That said, I would like to see the film, so maybe I'll just go watch another flick and slip in to this one.

I disagree with the viewpoint that Bush doesn't give two shits for our military. I think he's been one of our finest leaders, militarily, since Reagan. He gave a shit about us when Al Gore certainly didn't (increased funding was part of his election platform, and Gore's was 4 more years of Clinton, which I would argue that the military couldn't afford). And I think those who insist on him being at every military funeral, or release photographs of the repatriation efforts at Dover AFB (where all KIA casualties are flown in), just have an agenda, a dead horse to beat, and are looking to smite him in the eye. The things he's done - flying in an S-3 onto the Lincoln (not getting a ride in his pampered and chauferred helicopter), flying into Baghdad in a 747 for thanksgiving to surprise those there, show that he gives a crap and has got some balls too. I mean, flying a 747 into Baghdad Int'l, that's gutsy - 3 airlift aircraft had been hit my SAMs climbing out of Baghdad in the previous 3 mos. And a C-17 or C-5 is certainly better-equipped to handle that kind of damage than a 747 is. Clinton had traded the 747 for a C-17 for his visit to Sarajevo during his presidency, because it could take hits better.

Finally, Bush was here, at my base, just last week. He came during the middle of an election campaign to visit Ft. Lewis, and thank the soldiers and airmen for their service. Also they brought Kenny Chesney to do an unannounced concert for the troops assembled in the hangar before the boss could come out, to keep poeple entertained while waiting. He brought Sens. John McCain and Harry Reid with him, and the message was a big "thanks", it was pretty cool. I didn't get to go, a bunch of my friends and coworkers did, but I got to watch it on TV and it was pretty cool. Yes a bit of his speech was a policy-reelection speech, but I've resigned to the fact that that's what politicians do, Clinton did the same thing at service academy graduations. They do the same shit.

Finally, to those who say Bush has taken an inordinate time on vacation in Texas, LBJ did the same thing too, flying home to his Texas ranch whenever he could. Sound familiar? Fuck, LBJ went on a round-the-world tour on whim, with no objective, he just felt like it.

This isn't a pro-Bush schpiel. Is he in bed with industry? yes. Does he have some very odd quirks in how he handles himself? yes. Did he piss away world goodwill after 9/11? probably. But leadership-wise, I think he's been a damned fine leader, and there are a lot of other troops who feel the same way.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Wouldn't he show more concern for the military by not getting them killed unnecessarily? By making sure troops had needed supplies? By having adequate troop levels, as so many military leaders advised instead of what the civilians (Wolfowitz, for example) thought would do it? Armored humvees? Plates for bullet-proof vests?

And the reason he doesn't want pictures of remains being returned is obvious--see Vietnam for the reason.

Bush went recklessly into Iraq, bypassed international institutions, and was foolish enough to think the war could be done on the cheap. Not someone who truly cares about the military.
But then maybe he assumes that if you don't want to get killed your daddy can make it OK to go AWOL.

[Will]

Originally posted by mr_gyptian

maybe I missed all those Republican documentaries.

What? You didn't see DC 9/11: Time of Crisis?

Damn man, you're missing out....

[drugged_monkey]

Originally posted by mr_gyptian
conservative, libertarian??

none of the above. I look at each issue and decide where I stand on that specific issue. I find good things from all parties, but bad as well. The bad generally comes when the issues get lost in a battle for power.

[Jumper Bones]

up-armored humvees and body armor, before our conflict in Iraq, were not typical infantry-level issue. It just wasn't needed, and more specialized units got that stuff.

As far as spilling blood needlessly, it was a matter of time before an aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones was shot down. Saddam placed a million-dollar bounty on any US aviator's head, and his troops came very, very close on several occaisions. And while it is conjecture, it's a fair bet that any pilots or aircrew coming down would be shredded to bits, there wouldn't be any prisoners.

On adequate troop levels, see Mr Clinton on that one. Our military is 2/3rds the size it used to be. The Air Force alone is 45% the size it was 10 years ago. Most of the active-duty troop allotments that were lost in the 90s cuts were passed on to the Guard or Reserves. We've had to lean on them heavily in the past, such as in Allied Force over Kosovo and in the occupation of Bosnia. But that lower overhead cost from reduced troop manning helped get you that sweet 90s economy.

Yes, you can damned bet the photos would turn in to the same shit as Vietnam. The press has an agenda and is trying its damnedest to have an evening "body count" to smite this admin. in the eye.

I'm not disagreeing with you on some items. Some people in the DOD seriously dropped the ball several times, and made some crucial miscalculations. Rumsfeld has his own points to make, for better or worse. And IMHO, it looks like somebody in the DoD has an axe to grind with the US Army.

[Schmear]

Originally posted by Jetter
The press has an agenda and is trying its damnedest to have an evening "body count" to smite this admin. in the eye.

That's one way to look at it. One could also conclude that the press is trying to keep the White House's positive spin in check.

[Tiny]

Originally posted by Jetter
.On adequate troop levels, see Mr Clinton on that one. Our military is 2/3rds the size it used to be. The Air Force alone is 45% the size it was 10 years ago. ..

Wasn't your man Rummy the one who said we could win with a privatized army? That a "new era" had arrived?

So where's my check? They promised we'd win. I guess I missed the part about buying oil stocks before the big run-up caused by all the "uncertainity." Damn. A good patriot would've bought those damn stocks.

[JR]

I've seen the previews and his other stuff and I can honestly say that the fact that only a Canadian firm would make it available to the masses makes me proud. I don't agree with everything the guy says but he certainly fills a void and says what a lot of others won't.

[yogachik]

I disagree with the viewpoint that Bush doesn't give two shits for our military.

Jetter, respectfully --
Bush has cut pay for the miltary, cut health care for veterans in HALF, soldiers who are killed in Iraq are DOCKED for the days they miss in their pay cycle due to death (final paychecks are sent to the dead soldier's family - this is something I learned from F911), he has cut restitution for widows/widowers in half - all in the last year.

He (and this administration) really don't care about the actual lives. As Plakespear pointed out, those interviews with the soldiers should be required viewing. My god, they most actively recruit in the poorest neighborhoods, this tells me they find the poor expendable.

[Tippster]

Jetter - here's the problem Bush has regarding Veterans:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1222-01.htm

There was also a lot of talk during the Clinton Years from certain members of Congress (the Majority) that we shouldn't be in the business of Nation Building and that there is no need to maintain the size of our armed forces at Cold War levels after said war was over. Clinton did not argue against that, but it's revisionist thinking to place the blame for the "decimated" state of our military at his feet.

The main difference between the Clinton second term and the Bush first term is that Bush has a friendly majority in Congress and many proposals get passed without the scrutiny an opposing majority would deliver. Some call it rubber-stamping...

As regards Mr. Moore - hell yeah it's propaganda. Are they "Facts?" Sure. They're the facts he chose to focus on and he "connected the dots" with a very specific agenda in sight. I'm a registered Democrat and a member of the "liberal" media (BWAH!!) and F9/11 and BFC speak to my heart, but these films should in NO WAY be regarded as objective, dispassionate dissemination of the facts. They may be diametrically opposed, but there is very little difference between Mr. Moore and Mr. Limbaugh, who also uses "facts" to bolster his agenda.

[TJ.Brk]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Wouldn't he show more concern for the military by not getting them killed unnecessarily? By making sure troops had needed supplies? By having adequate troop levels, as so many military leaders advised instead of what the civilians (Wolfowitz, for example) thought would do it? Armored humvees? Plates for bullet-proof vests?

And the reason he doesn't want pictures of remains being returned is obvious--see Vietnam for the reason.

Bush went recklessly into Iraq, bypassed international institutions, and was foolish enough to think the war could be done on the cheap. Not someone who truly cares about the military.
But then maybe he assumes that if you don't want to get killed your daddy can make it OK to go AWOL.

Um Dex GW was dealing with Clinton budgets inregards to what the troops got issued. Why don't you address what the troops got from Clinton and maybe the No votes Kerry posted up when it came to giving our troops what they needed.

Now before you go shouting foul about this. I've served. You haven't served. I know directly who is to blame why our soldiers don't have the gear they needed. Say you get the proper ammount of funding passed by everyone for said gear in say 2004. It will be 2007 before they finally get it. So you have my permission to STFU about said topic because you have never been in the military.

I personally don't like GW. But we have two choices here.

1. Set back like plastic little ducks and be shot at.

2. Get those that want to kill us.

I vote 2. Now I have lost friends that came back in those flights to DAFB. I've been able to make a couple funerals. The last thing their familys wanted to see was their coffins coming off the bird on TV. And you have no right to say we should see them. It is like people on a highway slowing down to see how many people got killed in a car accident. It is just wrong dex and you know it.

We all set in hear and whine about this. Looking for someone to blame. Now that's a crime

And Dex as far as troop levels were concerned. If we had way to many troops you would bitch. If we had just enough you would bitch. If we had fewer you would bitch. But you have no education in troops strength or readiness. So go down and volunteer to join the army. Get your bars, go to war college, then come back here and tell me what you think.

[TJ.Brk]

Originally posted by yogachik
Jetter, respectfully --
Bush has cut pay for the miltary, cut health care for veterans in HALF, soldiers who are killed in Iraq are DOCKED for the days they miss in their pay cycle due to death (final paychecks are sent to the dead soldier's family - this is something I learned from F911), he has cut restitution for widows/widowers in half - all in the last year.

He (and this administration) really don't care about the actual lives. As Plakespear pointed out, those interviews with the soldiers should be required viewing. My god, they most actively recruit in the poorest neighborhoods, this tells me they find the poor expendable.

This from another person that isn't serving in the military, and isn't a veteran.

When Clinton was in office I waited 5 months t have an MRI. Cancer patients average wait for biopsy and treatment was 60 days after diagnosis. It's down to 20 now. I know this for a fact. There is also less married service men on welfare than during the clinton years. He has raised pay in the military each year he has been in office when it was frozen under Clinton for 5 years.

[Dexter Rutecki]

T.J.,

When you were in the military, what part of your training removed the section of the brain that allows for rational thought? I can't comment on an issue because I wasn't in the military? Where the fuck do you get off saying that?
How about I tell someone that because they don't have an advanced degree, or they're not a lawyer or doctor or something else, that they can't comment on something based on the facts?
Bush sent people to die in war, unnecessarily, and without proper support (materiel and international). BUSH did this, not Clinton. Bush decided to spend money on some bullshit Star Wars program that's never worked, and never will work, but didn't think grunts on the ground needed body armor. He also helped direct money to other weapons systems that aren't doing anything for the guys getting shot at.
Did you know that ground troops in Iraq often have to choose between taking a plate to protect their front or one to protect their back, because no one thought to issue enough armor? Did you know that having one plate can be worse than none, because bullets will ricochet off them and reenter the body? Was this covered in your military background, which makes you uniquely qualified to comment on Iraq?

And now, why don't you shut the fuck up, because I'm pretty sure you're outranked by this guy, who did serve. I don't want to hear anything else from you, because by your own logic you're no longer allowed an opinion.

Byline: Thomas M. DeFrank

WASHINGTON _ War is too important to be left to the generals, a French prime minister famously observed. Now, the generals have decided the Iraq war is too important to be left to the politicians.

Gen. John Abizaid's decision to press for bulking up U.S. firepower is a polite but unmistakable rebuff to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who for months has rejected sending more troops to Iraq in a campaign year.

"What Abizaid is really doing is confronting Rumsfeld," a senior Pentagon official told the New York Daily News.

[non grata]

what happens in the military is and should be the concern of every citizen... not just those who have served and are serving. if you find someone's view on the military to be convoluted, why not simply state your facts and let their strengths stand up for themselves.

it is extremely hard to buy the arguement that if you have not served or are not in the military, your thoughts and opinions are nil. do you propose enlisting for education purposes? is this the only way to truly be in the know? it seems like a very backwards and dangerous method of education. come out knowing nothing, being discharged knowing everything.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Jetter
up-armored humvees and body armor, before our conflict in Iraq, were not typical infantry-level issue. It just wasn't needed, and more specialized units got that stuff.

But when sending ground troops into an urban combat environment, that's no longer the case. Again, the administration tricked everyone into thinking occupation would be easy and we'd be welcomed. Rather than prepare for the reality of it, Bush scrambled to get his war together.

As far as spilling blood needlessly, it was a matter of time before an aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones was shot down. Saddam placed a million-dollar bounty on any US aviator's head, and his troops came very, very close on several occaisions. And while it is conjecture, it's a fair bet that any pilots or aircrew coming down would be shredded to bits, there wouldn't be any prisoners.

But this never happened. And now we've had nearly 1000 killed and 22 or 23,000 medical evacuations in Iraq. I think that's a lot of lives for an airplane that never got hit.

On adequate troop levels, see Mr Clinton on that one. Our military is 2/3rds the size it used to be. The Air Force alone is 45% the size it was 10 years ago. Most of the active-duty troop allotments that were lost in the 90s cuts were passed on to the Guard or Reserves. We've had to lean on them heavily in the past, such as in Allied Force over Kosovo and in the occupation of Bosnia. But that lower overhead cost from reduced troop manning helped get you that sweet 90s economy.

Bush's priorities have been missile defense and advanced fighters, neither of which (obviously, at this point) we need. It's impossible to believe we couldn't put enough troops in Iraq given our huge military spending. We could've, and we should've. Those generals brave enough to dissent have stated this publicly.

Yes, you can damned bet the photos would turn in to the same shit as Vietnam. The press has an agenda and is trying its damnedest to have an evening "body count" to smite this admin. in the eye.

The administration is doing its best to keep Americans in the dark, and the press is meekly complying. The mainstream press has accepted everything Bush and Rummy have fed them, and then stirred the patriotic stew with moving pieces about soldiers and good work done for Iraqis.
It's time we saw the human cost. Americans shouldn't have their dead hidden from them--that's not what a democracy is supposed to do, IMO.

I'm not disagreeing with you on some items. Some people in the DOD seriously dropped the ball several times, and made some crucial miscalculations. Rumsfeld has his own points to make, for better or worse. And IMHO, it looks like somebody in the DoD has an axe to grind with the US Army.

You might be right, though it's hard to believe such 'games' would be played.

Also, Jetter, I appreciate the tone of your posts.

[CUBUCK]

Originally posted by non grata
what happens in the military is and should be the concern of every citizen... not just those who have served and are serving. if you find someone's view on the military to be convoluted, why not simply state your facts and let their strengths stand up for themselves.

it is extremely hard to buy the arguement that if you have not served or are not in the military, your thoughts and opinions are nil. do you propose enlisting for education purposes? is this the only way to truly be in the know? it seems like a very backwards and dangerous method of education. come out knowing nothing, being discharged knowing everything.

I think what was trying to be conveyed is that those in the military and those that have served speak from personal experience not sound bites from congressmen, the president or whoever else. While everyone should care and be concerned with the military, those with personal experiences are far more qualified to tell the rest of us about their experiences.

[non grata]

then let them convey their personal experiences without a condescending and demeaning tone. their wisdom and service in the military have nothing to do with those two traits.

i know that is what TJ meant, but that is not how it was presented.

[Jumper Bones]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by yogachik
Jetter, respectfully --
Bush has cut pay for the miltary
[/QUOTE
]
this is absolutely not true. While Bush has been in office, there have been 2 or 3 pay increases, so my pay has gone nothing but up. That said, it isn't much - I net about 1100 a mo. as an E-3 with 4 years of service. Yes my housing is "taken care of", but when you're subject for inspection at all hours free isn't necessarily alright with you.

One area Bush has steadfastly refused to up benefits to is Reservists and Guardsmen. One of the items on the agenda was lowering the age retirement pensions could be collected, presently you cannot collect until you are 65. Bush refused upping reservist pay this year to "avoid alienating active-duty troops". Remember, a significant number (but certainly nowhere near all) reserve and guard troops are activated right now. When activated, reservists and guardsmen are paid the same as their active-duty counterparts and receive the same benefits.

I personally think the benefits should be upped considering how reliant the military is on its reserve forces these days; service in the guard or reserve is hardly like it was in the 80s or 70s.

[QUOTE]cut health care for veterans in HALF, soldiers who are killed in Iraq are DOCKED for the days they miss in their pay cycle due to death (final paychecks are sent to the dead soldier's family - this is something I learned from F911), he has cut restitution for widows/widowers in half - all in the last year.
[QUOTE]
I'll definitely check up on this. The "widow's tax" has been around for a very long time, and it's certainly not a GWB invention. There's been a fight for a long time in congress to get it removed, and to the best of my knowledge it's still there.

As far as the docking in pay due to death, I'll check on that too. Keep in mind there is another pay, a widower's pay, that kicks in at this point. Also the SGLI (Serviceman's Group Life Insurance, the standard life insurance for DoD personnel) starts paying. Maybe that's why.

Granted I haven't seen F911, and I don't have the regs in front of me, but this wouldn't be the first thing Mr Moore has been inaccurate about with his flick. Richard Clarke is somewhat upset on his analysis of the post 9-11 Saudi evacuation flights, saying it was GWB alone who authorized it. Not the case, and distorted facts.

anyway, I'll check and see.

My god, they most actively recruit in the poorest neighborhoods, this tells me they find the poor expendable.

I can say that having worked with a recruiter in an affluent area, it is certainly easier to get poorer individuals over to the military than the rich kids. From experience, kids would come in, and then mommy and daddy would offer to pay for everything if the kid stays and home and doesn't run off to die in the army. I mean why would kids want to leave a life of luxury and privilege? The recruiter I worked for was actually stoked to get moved offices from Bellevue to Federal Way, since the wealthy influence in Bellevue made him have to work 3-4 times as hard just to meet goal.

the one bit of good news about this is, Air Force quotas for enlistees are being lessened by a THIRD this next fiscal year. The AF, at least, is trying to shut off the flow in.

[shamrockpow]

Originally posted by Jetter
On adequate troop levels, see Mr Clinton on that one. Our military is 2/3rds the size it used to be. The Air Force alone is 45% the size it was 10 years ago. Most of the active-duty troop allotments that were lost in the 90s cuts were passed on to the Guard or Reserves. We've had to lean on them heavily in the past, such as in Allied Force over Kosovo and in the occupation of Bosnia. But that lower overhead cost from reduced troop manning helped get you that sweet 90s economy.

As much as it pains everyone who lives in a military family or the actual soldiers themselves the 1/3 cut in the military since the Reagan years is directly atributable to winning the Cold War and has been a very logical policy. Dick Cheney and Bush 41 both agreed with this policy and actually began the cutbacks and base closures that continued under Clinton through the 90s. I'm not an expert on this subject by any means, but I would guess that our troop levels now are adequate to protect the US from all foreign enemies AND fight a war in Afghanistan, but not sufficient to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously.

Yes, you can damned bet the photos would turn in to the same shit as Vietnam. The press has an agenda and is trying its damnedest to have an evening "body count" to smite this admin. in the eye.

Would it be "smiting" the administration in the eye if the press had showed a flag draped coffin of a pilot shot down in Iraq in 1999 under clinton? (in your hypothetical example) I think showing the coffins just reminds the public that war is sacrafice and lives are being lost. Bush's only motivation in censoring these photos is to keep casualties out of the public eye (NOT to respect the troops).

[powpig]

I'm not a fan of Moore's and am curious about F911 only to see what he had the guts to actually include in his movie. There is surely more than enough damning evidence against the Dubya Admin, but I don't expect to find it in F911.

There is a long juicy connection between the Bush & Bin Laden families. During the 2000 campaign I read about how Prescott Bush (Dubya's Gramps) and Osama's older brother did business as far back as the 60s. There was a picture of a teenage Osama Bin Laden at Camp David in the 70s, supposedly at the invitation of the Bush family. I've never been to Camp David. Any of you maggots ever been to Camp David? We know the controlled mainstream media refuses to report this. Does Moore have the guts to make this connection in his movie? I doubt it.

I hate the Democrats so could enjoy a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh while Clinton was president. But it's incomprehensible to me how Limbaugh falls all over himself to praise Bush at every turn for doing many of the same things. What a fuckin' hypocrite!

Just so we're straight, Iraq has been systematically carpet bombed since Daddy Bush first sent troops in. From the first Desert Storm, through 8 years of the Clinton Admin, and continuing now, 3 US Presidents have weekly, if not daily, spilled the blood of innocent Iraquis. Does Moore spill the whole truth about recent US policy, both by Democrat & Republican President or does he only focus on Dubya and his narrow agenda?

If Moore's F911 can open the door to allow the whole truth to come out, it can be a good thing. That people are reacting as if Moore is an extremist to me is sad. He's most definitely biased, (aren't we all) but beware of accusations of extremism by the status quo. They seek only to character assasinate and detract from the message.

Ozzy and the boys had it right:
"Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why don't they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor. Yeah!"

[hot_sauce]

Originally posted by yogachik


Just be sure to vote this November - please. If you aren't registered, let me know and I'll help get you registered, no matter where you live.

Even Florida? That would be impressive... (sorry just read the 1st chapter of "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" a couple days ago. "Hanging chads" = totally irrelevant distraction from the story of what really went down in the sunshine state)

[hot_sauce]

Originally posted by Arnold Babar
There's no such thing as a "balanced" point of view. Each of us has a unique perspective. Moore put his on screen. You bring yours to the theatre. Limbaugh blusters his over radio waves. It makes no sense to talk about balance. It isn't even a worthy goal even if it were attainable. The trick is to be right according to your own perspective, while realizing that there are infinite other perspectives, which when brought into contact with yours alter it, while becoming altered.

well said

unfortunately de facto censorship within the mainstream media prevents people from being presented with certain facts that might be important to people in forming their perspectives based on what they know as well as their personal beliefs

[Schmear]

I like Jetter. Seems like someone who tries to see it both ways.

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic22866.jpg