Fahrenheit 911 and the 2004 election

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
It looks like Michael Moore's documentary on the US political environment post-9/11 and the connection between the Bin Laden and Bush families (not to mention the Carlyle Group) is going to be released in time for Cannes 2004...which means it will be in theaters in plenty of time for American voters to view before deciding who they want to be president.



I know that a number of people here are no great fans of Mr. Moore, but no one can deny that his name and the success of Bowling for Columbine ($40 mil worldwide gross) are going to lead to a fairly large number of people seeing Fahrenheit 911.



What impact d'you reckon this might have on the election?
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 123
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I don't know anything about the movie - can you provide some more info? It seems to me that if he tries to imply even obliquely that Bush was part of some 9/11 conspiracy it's not going to do much for the much-sought-after swing voters and soccer moms...
  • Reply 2 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kneelbeforezod

    It looks like Michael Moore's documentary on the US political environment post-9/11 and the connection between the Bin Laden and Bush families (not to mention the Carlyle Group) is going to be released in time for Cannes 2004...which means it will be in theaters in plenty of time for American voters to view before deciding who they want to be president.



    I know that a number of people here are no great fans of Mr. Moore, but no one can deny that his name and the success of Bowling for Columbine ($40 mil worldwide gross) are going to lead to a fairly large number of people seeing Fahrenheit 911.



    What impact d'you reckon this might have on the election?




    If anything, I hope the film points out the obscene notion that Bill Clinton is directly responsible for 9/11. I hope it also points out that Bill Clinton had zero support from the hill on any of his anti-terrorism legislation. Additionally, I hope it also points out that there was absolute no plan on Bush's desk to take out Osama before 9/11.



    9/11 created the mandate regardless of who was in the white house.
  • Reply 3 of 123
    There were several attempts by the Clinton administration to get Osama...



    Sandy Berger; National Security advisor; warned the Bushies in Jan. 2001 that "You're going to spend more time during your four years on terrorism generally and al-Qaeda specifically than any issue"...



    I'm not saying that it's anyone's fault... but the facts are that Clinton very much wanted to get Osama. And when the Bushies came in... they had other things to worry about... like working on the "star wars" defense program.
  • Reply 4 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I don't know anything about the movie - can you provide some more info? It seems to me that if he tries to imply even obliquely that Bush was part of some 9/11 conspiracy it's not going to do much for the much-sought-after swing voters and soccer moms...



    Well, apparently its more focused on Bush 41 and how he had a lot of business dealings with the Bin Laden family that didn't recieve much media scrutiny post-9/11..while he might imply that the money Osama Bin Laden uses to finance terrorist activites came from business affairs that were mutually profitable to the Bin Laden and Bush families, I would be very surprised if he attempted to implicate the Bush family in 9/11.



    There was a UPI article back in March that provided additional information.
  • Reply 5 of 123
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Bill Clinton can be blamed for not doing enough to get Bin Laden. He was told that a strike on bin Laden was needed but Bill allowed Albright to argue that "world opinion" wouldn't stand for it. So ... defering to "world opinion" got in the way of saving 3000 lives (maybe more depending on how you count).



    **** "world opinion".
  • Reply 6 of 123
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I'm sure MM will come out with another lie filled movie. His guilt by association is against the very spirit of the Bill of Rights. It will blow up in his fat face. Worst part is people outside the US don't know what a liar he is.
  • Reply 7 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I don't know anything about the movie - can you provide some more info? It seems to me that if he tries to imply even obliquely that Bush was part of some 9/11 conspiracy it's not going to do much for the much-sought-after swing voters and soccer moms...



    Who knows he might draw from some of the ideas and thoughts presented in This Conspiracy Link or then again he may not. Who is to say.



    Fellows
  • Reply 8 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Bill Clinton can be blamed for not doing enough to get Bin Laden. He was told that a strike on bin Laden was needed but Bill allowed Albright to argue that "world opinion" wouldn't stand for it. So ... defering to "world opinion" got in the way of saving 3000 lives (maybe more depending on how you count).



    What clear hindsight you have. Perhaps assasinating Bin Laden would have prevented 9/11 - or a similar terrorist action - from happening. But if it were so easy to anticipate what Al Queda were capeable of, why did the Bush administration not take him out as soon as it came into power?



    Good thing Bush got him afterwards...oh wait.
  • Reply 9 of 123
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Bill Clinton can be blamed for not doing enough to get Bin Laden.



    This is a big crock of shit. Bin Laden is still free. Bill authorized the assassination of Bin Laden many years ago. He's just not easy to find. He's still free, but you would never dare say Bush hasn't done enough because you're biased, dogmatic and dishonest.
  • Reply 10 of 123
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    This is a big crock of shit. Bin Laden is still free. Bill authorized the assassination of Bin Laden many years ago. He's just not easy to find. He's still free, but you would never dare say Bush hasn't done enough because you're biased, dogmatic and dishonest.



    And guess who criticized Clinton when he did go after bin Laden.
  • Reply 11 of 123
    When Clinton went after Bin Laden republicans cried foul... claiming it was a Wag the Dog policy to distract from their attempts to impeach him and take him down.
  • Reply 12 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Bill Clinton can be blamed for not doing enough to get Bin Laden. He was told that a strike on bin Laden was needed but Bill allowed Albright to argue that "world opinion" wouldn't stand for it. So ... defering to "world opinion" got in the way of saving 3000 lives (maybe more depending on how you count).



    **** "world opinion".




    And this, folks, is exactly why the rest of the world hates our f*cking guts! This is why we cannot get the support from the UN for anything ever again! This is why the rest of the world is saying "you created this stupid quagmire, now stew in it". This is why they won't lift a finger to help us out. The entire world was on our side after 9/11, now they don't want to have anything to do with us.



    The "f*ck world opinion" attitude that prevails in America right now WILL COST US ADDITIONAL AMERICAN LIVES and will strengthen the resolve of our enemies! Guaranteed!



    THIS IS EXACTLY WHY BUSH WILL LOSE IN '04!
  • Reply 13 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    And this, folks, is exactly why the rest of the world hates our f*cking guts! This is why we cannot get the support from the UN for anything ever again! This is why the rest of the world is saying "you created this stupid quagmire, now stew in it". This is why they won't lift a finger to help us out. The entire world was on our side after 9/11, now they don't want to have anything to do with us.



    The "f*ck world opinion" attitude that prevails in America right now WILL COST US ADDITIONAL AMERICAN LIVES and will strengthen the resolve of our enemies! Guaranteed!



    THIS IS EXACTLY WHY BUSH WILL LOSE IN '04!




    Take a read at the link I provided 7 posts up.



    Go ahead, Take a read at it.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 14 of 123
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Take a read at the link I provided 7 posts up.



    Go ahead, Take a read at it.



    Fellowship




    Ahem. Fellows, it's no conspiracy to say that the US had the world's hearts and minds after 9/11.



    You do know that the Le Monde (French 'Times') had as it's headline "We Are All Americans Now" on the 12th, don't you? That's right, the French loved America.



    And Fellows, it's no conspiracy at all to say that the actions of GWB and Comical Rummy blew all that good will to hell.



    The US pissed the world off. Remember that horrible time before the war, when many many members on THESE BOARDS echoed the official line ... we were all 'irrelevant' if we didn't agree.



    I post this because Northgate posts simple truths and you point him at a conspiracy crackpot page.



    Me? I love America. I've seen more of it then many on these boards (quality time in 8 states) but you know my feelings about your foolish President and his dangerous henchmen.
  • Reply 15 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Take a read at the link I provided 7 posts up.

    Go ahead, Take a read at it.

    Fellowship




    America can't handle the truth. Maybe Fat-Boy Moore will be able to take all this and wrap it into another edible fast-food package for Americans to digest easily.



    But I still think we're sheep. Bush in 2004 will happen...pathetic....



  • Reply 16 of 123
    If Bin Laden was so easy to kill... why isn't he dead yet?

    What ever happened to Bush's "Dead or Alive" statement? Bush had Carte Blanche in Afghanistan... as much military power as he could ever want to get him... and...



    we have no idea if he's dead or alive.



    How's that hunt for Saddam goin'?



    I, as a rule, am very skeptical about conspiracy theories... they're too easy to create... and almost impossible to prove.
  • Reply 17 of 123
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott



    **** "world opinion".




    OK buddy.



    **** you too.



    You clean up Iraq.
  • Reply 18 of 123
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Ahem. Fellows, it's no conspiracy to say that the US had the world's hearts and minds after 9/11.



    You do know that the Le Monde (French 'Times') had as it's headline "We Are All Americans Now" on the 12th, don't you? That's right, the French loved America.



    And Fellows, it's no conspiracy at all to say that the actions of GWB and Comical Rummy blew all that good will to hell.



    The US pissed the world off. Remember that horrible time before the war, when many many members on THESE BOARDS echoed the official line ... we were all 'irrelevant' if we didn't agree.



    I post this because Northgate posts simple truths and you point him at a conspiracy crackpot page.



    Me? I love America. I've seen more of it then many on these boards (quality time in 8 states) but you know my feelings about your foolish President and his dangerous henchmen.




    Harald... I don't get it? I agree with you Did you even look at the link I had and what it contains? Sure you don't have to believe it nor do I but to consider what it says is something if interest if nothing else. I thought the page tied in with the feelings of Northgate not against.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 19 of 123
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Harald... I don't get it? I agree with you Did you even look at the link I had and what it contains? Sure you don't have to believe it nor do I but to consider what it says is something if interest if nothing else. I thought the page tied in with the feelings of Northgate not against.



    Fellowship




    I apologise completely.



    My feelings about that article is that it starts very well, is very reasonable and accurate ... and then asks questions that I think are off balance.



    I thought you were calling him a conspiracy nut. My misreading.
  • Reply 20 of 123
    It's depressing to think about after 9/11 ... the outpouring of support and love for the US by most of the world... and how it was totally and utterly squandered.
Sign In or Register to comment.