Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?

[Pangloss]

F9/11 does not express an extremist viewpoint. The reason so many have watched it is because it expresses a viewpoint near the center.

True. Conservatives (and liberals responding to them) tend to forget that Moore lambastes the Democratic Party every chance he gets.

It does express a viewpoint that's familiar to all Americans, but that doesn't make it a middle-ground viewpoint. F9/11 is as ideological and extremist as it gets.

And of course Moore trashes the Democrats. That's because they're not far ENOUGH to the left for him.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What makes it extremist?

 

[Pangloss]

Lack of accuracy, pointed abuse of accuracy to make ideological statements, erroneous claims.

Specifically?
- Claim/implication that bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country during the no-fly period (denied by the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke)
- Use of irrelevencies to imply a vast conspiracy of responsibility by the Bush administration to ignore (not cause but ignore) threats leading up to 9/11
- Use of video clips out of context to make specific ideological points that have little or nothing to do with the war, defeating terrorism, determining responsibiltiy for 9/11, or even deciding whether to vote for Bush or Kerry (though I admit there is some relevence to the last point, as IMO character is a valid issue)

That's what makes it "extremist". These are not positions that reasonable people can reasonably assert or defend. They require (*require*) ideological bias. Not to mention tin foil hats and Oliver Stone voice-overs.

Now I'll be happy to defend those points, and/or add more if you like, and even get specific, but the minute someone suggests that I'm ideologically biased on this, the conversation is over. Show some respect or this'll be a real short chat.

 

[nbachris2788]

And yet F9/11 has made over $100 million, more than any documentary in history.

Many Republican card carriers have also seen the movie out of curiosity, and to find out the errors of Michael Moore.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Perhaps I did not make my self clear,

A extremist have a extreme agenda, kicking out Bush is not very extreme, many moderate republicans have that view. Also this was being claimed as extreme left, what is extreme left about it?

 

[Pangloss]

I've answered that question. I'm not interested in nit-picking or equivocation. If you don't want to discuss my points directly, fine, we'll move on.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well then it’s not an extreme left view as you have not been able to verify that claim. You have yet to prove a requirement of ideological bias, you simple claim one.

 

[Pangloss]

Oh no, what happened here is you asked a question, I answered it, and you ignored my points and went on to equivocate, ignore, and marginalize my argument. Nice.

So, as I warned you (because I've seen you do that before), we're done here. Have fun storming the castle.

 

[Tiassa]

Claim/implication that bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country during the no-fly period (denied by the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke)

I don't know what to offer as a reward for the first to find it, but let's all keep our eyes sharp for the firing of a journalist named Kathy Steele, then. Click here to read Michael Moore's source as cited in Dude, Where's My Country.

Not all of us in the world who read newspapers get to have congressional inquiries find out if they're true or not.

Show some respect or this'll be a real short chat.

The irony ....

 

[zanket]

- Claim/implication that bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country during the no-fly period (denied by the 9/11 commission and Richard Clarke)

Toss it out, but keep the part where they weren’t detained and questioned as would normally be routine. Heck, Saddam's extended family was tortured for info. Why not the bin Ladens?

- Use of irrelevencies to imply a vast conspiracy of responsibility by the Bush administration to ignore (not cause but ignore) threats leading up to 9/11

Please be more specific. What the movie pointed out along these lines (excessive Bush vacation time, Bush ignoring threat info expressed in briefings) seemed reasonable to me.

- Use of video clips out of context to make specific ideological points...

Give an example.

 

[Pangloss]

Toss it out, but keep the part where they weren’t detained and questioned as would normally be routine.

According to the 9/11 commission report, the ones who were on watch lists were questioned. Yes, none were detained. *That's* the routine, when the results of that questioning indicate no problems. The 9/11 commission report found no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Heck, Saddam's extended family was tortured for info. Why not the bin Ladens?

And members of Saddam's immediate family ate the brunt end of M-16 fire. So what? The answer to your question is because one deserved it and the other did not.

Please be more specific. What the movie pointed out along these lines (excessive Bush vacation time, Bush ignoring threat info expressed in briefings) seemed reasonable to me.

Then I don't need to be more specific, because you've already written off the kind of points I would have brought up. (shrug) That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but we were discussing whether the movie *in my opinion* presents an extremist point of view. I've given my reasons why I believe it does. Since I presume you won't try to spin my opinion on something, that doesn't leave us much to talk about.

 

[zanket]

According to the 9/11 commission report, the ones who were on watch lists were questioned. Yes, none were detained. *That's* the routine, when the results of that questioning indicate no problems. The 9/11 commission report found no evidence of any wrongdoing.

If the 9/11 commission concluded that, then I have to suspect the commission. The bin Ladens were out of the country within days of 9/11. Obviously any questioning done was cursory, which is not standard investigative procedure. The extended bin Laden family in the US--all of them--should have been detained for weeks after 9/11, in order to extract from them any info about Osama’s whereabouts and doings. Whereas the bin Ladens were speedily given a green light to leave, the Husseins were tortured. That’s a big difference.

All Moore pointed out was this huge discrepancy in investigative procedure (and he compared the bin Ladens only to other material witnesses). That’s not an extreme viewpoint. It’s a red flag to any reasonable person.

And members of Saddam's immediate family ate the brunt end of M-16 fire. So what? The answer to your question is because one deserved it and the other did not.

Why did one deserve it and the other did not? I don’t get the M-16 comment.

Then I don't need to be more specific, because you've already written off the kind of points I would have brought up. (shrug)

I haven’t written them off. Above I ask you to explain them further. Along with that, please specify irrelevencies Moore used to imply a vast conspiracy of responsibility by the Bush administration to ignore threats leading up to 9/11. I didn't see any that were irrelevant. Also specify what video clips were out of context to make specific ideological points.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Pangloss,

Your answer did not demonstrate in any way why it was a extreme left view. I’m sorry if my first question was misleading, but you said it was extreme left or extreme liberalism, I say that a inherent bias on your part.

 

[Pangloss]

WCF: The word "left" was inserted by you. I never said it. And of course I'm biased. So is everyone.

Again, I've given reasons why I think it was extremist. You disagree. That's fine. I wasn't making an objective observation, I was stating my opinion. (shrug)

Again, my point in bringing up F9/11 in this thread was to demonstrate why I believe that extremism is not a small factor in the present political environment. I've backed that up with specifics, but if folks don't agree with them, fine. We all have our opinions. What I don't understand is when people say "give me examples", I give them examples, and they say "that doesn't count, give me examples". I don't get it, but I guess what it is is that people find it easier to attack than refute. Whatever.

Zanket:

I don’t get the M-16 comment.

It was a less-than-effective reference to Hussein's sons.

Why did one deserve it and the other did not?

Much of Saddam's family was involved in the regime. I believe a number of them (brothers?) have been detained on that basis. Do you have an example of a member of the Hussein family who was detained who would be comparable to a member of the bin Laden family who was not detained?

What the movie pointed out along these lines (excessive Bush vacation time, Bush ignoring threat info expressed in briefings) seemed reasonable to me.

I haven’t written them off.

Sure you have, and that's fine. You're not going to engage me in an ideological dispute. I'm here to debate issues, not argue over entrenched opinions. Sorry.

 

[Pangloss]

By the way, WCF, you can have the last word here simply by stating "IN MY OPINION you haven't given valid examples to back up your claim". Its your implied objectivity in criticizing my opinions that I take issue with.

 

[zanket]

Do you have an example of a member of the Hussein family who was detained who would be comparable to a member of the bin Laden family who was not detained?

Sure. All of Hussein’s extended family was ripe for detention (that is, they were sought, and when caught they were detained), along with everyone who had any significant connection to him (people like drivers and attendants). And not just detained, but tortured. Most of these people were not suspects but rather only material witnesses, and those who were only material witnesses are comparable to members of the bin Laden family who were not detained.

Sure you have, and that's fine. You're not going to engage me in an ideological dispute. I'm here to debate issues, not argue over entrenched opinions. Sorry.

No, I haven’t written them off. That sounds like a convenient way to avoid supporting your opinion. My opinion is not entrenched. If you can make a good case then I might agree with you. I haven’t heard your whole case; I’ve heard only your summary of it. I’d like the details.

 

[Pangloss]

All of Hussein’s extended family was ripe for detention (that is, they were sought, and when caught they were detained), along with everyone who had any significant connection to him (people like drivers and attendants). And not just detained, but tortured.

This is not the case. For one thing, his daughter Raghad Hussein and her husband Hussein Kamel were certainly not detained. She's now living in Jordan organizing his defense team and I believe is the one who asked Qadafi's (sp?) daughter to help out. So right away your statement is false. Want to amend it? Did you, perhaps, mean members of his family captured in Iraq, or something along those lines? Got any articles or specific names?

 

[zanket]

Let's be fair...I will answer that (as I have all your other questions) if you fulfill my request above:

please specify irrelevencies Moore used to imply a vast conspiracy of responsibility by the Bush administration to ignore threats leading up to 9/11. ... Also specify what video clips were out of context to make specific ideological points.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No you said "extreme liberalism", are we going to have to argue about the sematic of "left" vs "liberalism"?

 

[Pangloss]

No, I see what you're referring to now, back on page one. That's fine, but it doesn't change my point. Are we going to have to argue about what an "opinion" is, and what constitutes the answer to a question?