The WaPo on Bush’s Seven Minutes
Washington Post staff writer Joel Achenbach puts about the best spin possible on Bush’s deer-in-the-headlights performance at the elementary school that morning: On 9/11, a telling seven-minute silence. Lefty bloggers are grumbling about the piece’s description of Bush as the nation’s “spiritual leader,” and the way it talks about him “courageously” throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game shortly after the attacks. (Some of the better grumbling can be read in this piece by Xan at Corrente: Hollowed be thy name.) And I have to admit, Achenbach’s story does have an odd tone for a straight news piece. But I’m basically okay with it.
Sure, put the event in the best light you can. Let the Bush people talk about how he was thinking of the kids, wanting to project “calm” and “strength.” Millions of people are still going to be sitting there in darkened theaters over the next few months, watching the uninterrupted footage during Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. And I don’t care how much pro-Bush spin you apply before and after, I’m confident that a solid majority of those watching that footage are going to come away from the scene with just one thought in their heads: That man had no fucking clue whatsoever.
Now, you Bush supporters can make all the excuses you want. We were all shocked and befuddled on that awful day; I know I was. But that footage is going to resonate, and in the privacy of the voting booth it’s going to bubble up again. As it should.
June 19th, 2004 at 11:25 am
I personally think the “spiritual leader” line was outrageous. But I’m just a commie pinko America-hating weasel. So consider the source. :-)
June 19th, 2004 at 11:36 am
Aw… give Bush a break already for starring off into space like he has no fucking clue. What would you have done? Put on your best determined-leader, I’m-gonna-get-them look? Or maybe the Don Rumsfeld deeply-introspecting-grandfather look? He’s allowed to have no fucking clue for seven minutes. I don’t think any worse of him for it.
June 21st, 2004 at 2:58 am
Alright, I dislike the Bush administration as much as the nearest Commie pinko lefty. But let’s stop taking cheap shots (Alf: I agree with ya here). There is so much more that Bush has done to warrant his removal from office. Hs seven minutes could be interpreted as “model composure”. He’s usually so irritable and defensive, as are most dry drunks, but I found his reaction more than appropriate and “presidential”. IT’s not he that calls those immediate shots, for that you have the NSA and Cheney hunkered down in the White House. Bush did nothing wrong on that morning, so give it a rest.
June 21st, 2004 at 12:15 pm
In my mind, this is absolutely the opposite of a cheap shot. Bush’s whole presidency is hanging on his behavior during and after 9/11, since no one apparently cares about anything else. So, I say hit him where he lives. As has been said elsewhere, Bush’s behavior choices didn’t only consist of staring blankly while the nation was being attacked (during a critical period where possibly lives could have been saved), or freaking out and running out of the room, scaring the children. (For some reason I have an image of Helen Lovejoy wailing, “WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?”)
I remember having lunch with a friend on 9/11, and seeing Bush on TV saying, “I just spoke to the Vice President.” And I thought, yeah, I bet you did.
If Bush can’t be judged on his behavior on 9/11 (where also he supposedly didn’t spend any time in the Sit Room, to debunk some of Clarke’s charges), then what *can* he be judged on? The American people have already discounted
-His background
-His “military service”
-His experience or lack of same
-His ties to Big Oil, and those of his administration
-The uncounted ongoing scandals in his administration
-His “intellectual incuriousity”
-His inability to find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight
and found all these to be meaningless. So I’ll go with something people seem to say they still care about, while anything exists. I think judging Bush on 9/11 is several magnitudes more important than, say, how much John Kerry spends on lunch.
June 21st, 2004 at 5:02 pm
1) Let’s see, who else here wasn’t silent while watching what was happening? It’s somewhat rattling, even in reruns. It is indeed a cheap shot; Bush’s incompetence more than warrants his removal, going after his emotional reactions is low.
2) Moore is a liar. I thought he was on the ball for a few minutes after walking out of the theatre, then I remembered how much “editing” changes a film. Check out these:
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com
and
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
Perhaps these sites are biased against Moore and just as interested in making him look bad as exposing the truth. However, that’s no different than Moore’s objective(s) when doing Bowling for Columbine (and probably F9/11 as well).
For as much as people here complain about the conservative spin prevalent in most news agencies these days, they sure are ignorant to the liberal LIES in movies which are basicly used as a publicity stunt.
June 21st, 2004 at 7:29 pm
1) Emotional reactions? Seriously? He’s the fucking Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth. I expect him to react to a crisis like this in a useful and professional manner, and he didn’t do it. Case closed.
2) I have read tons of Moore hit sites, and in my estimation, 95 percent of their shots against him are bogus. I love how when he was exposing corporate crime, he’s was a lovable scamp. But the minute he starts talking about guns, or Saint Bush, he’s the Most Evil Man in America (tm Dean Esmay). Oh, plus he’s fat. “Perhaps” the hit sites are biased? Good one, Former Fan.
As Moore said on a fantastic appearance on the Today Show this morning, F9/11 is two hours to counter years of propaganda from the administration and the mainstream corporate media. I’d say that’s something to celebrate. And when White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett calls the film “outrageously false” without having seen it, I think Moore’s onto something.
June 21st, 2004 at 7:53 pm
As the historian in the very WashPost article we’re discussing said:
“Character is not defined in good times, when you’ve been properly briefed, it’s defined when you’re in a desperate crisis situation.”
Amen, brother.
June 22nd, 2004 at 7:45 am
“Emotional reactions? Seriously? He’s the fucking Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth. I expect him to react to a crisis like this in a useful and professional manner, and he didn’t do it. Case closed.”
My question remains, “What did you do?” Did you go to your nearest army recruitment center and sign up? Do you realize that ANY president (particularly Bush) is merely a figurehead? For everyone who calls Bush an outrageous reactionary, they sure are quick to call Bush an idiot when he doesn’t do something without thinking about it first.
“I have read tons of Moore hit sites, and in my estimation, 95 percent of their shots against him are bogus. I love how when he was exposing corporate crime, he’s was a lovable scamp. But the minute he starts talking about guns, or Saint Bush, he’s the Most Evil Man in America (tm Dean Esmay). Oh, plus he’s fat. “Perhaps” the hit sites are biased? Good one, Former Fan.”
The problem is that the 5% of their shots which are correct are those which point out how Moore set up scenes and quoted people out of context. And that’s the percent which MATTERS.
“As Moore said on a fantastic appearance on the Today Show this morning, F9/11 is two hours to counter years of propaganda from the administration and the mainstream corporate media. I’d say that’s something to celebrate. And when White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett calls the film “outrageously false” without having seen it, I think Moore’s onto something.”
You’re just the kind of media sheep that Moore makes his money from. Congratulations on supporting the left-wing cinema lies rather than the right-wing media lies. You’ve obviously made your decision that the movie is gospel without even seeing it. Bartlett probably realizes that 90% of movies are fluff and lies, and Moore’s psuedo-documentaries are no exception.
“Character is not defined in good times, when you’ve been properly briefed, it’s defined when you’re in a desperate crisis situation.”
Agreed. And had Bush started throwing a fit and hollering that would have been bad character. Taking a moment and collecting himself before reacting was quite probably the most mature thing Bush has ever done in his life, and easily the most mature thing he’s done in his run as president.
As a special little project, READ http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/cast.htm which are actual complaints from the cast of the “Bowling for Columbine” movie. Something tells me that if your true character is captured and portrayed accurately in a movie, one wouldn’t complain. Aside from that, read the lie-by-lie analysis on bowlingfortruth and read the response from Moore’s site side by side.
Yes, I agree that BOTH sides are biased. However, that’s why WE as INTELLIGENT adults who seek the TRUTH need to take both sides into consideration before deciding which side is lying less. Adam, I don’t think you’re an idiot and don’t intend to personally attack you if you’ve felt I’ve done so, I just think you need to be a bit more open to evaluating all the data.
June 22nd, 2004 at 8:49 am
FF: You’re the one calling F9/11 “left-wing cinema lies.” I’ve already expressed my opinion about “Bowling,” although I’ll add a couple points:
-I think *my* 5% are nitpicky things that don’t change the underlying point.
-As for the hit site you quoted, isn’t it likely that people who look bad in the film, or who had bad effects from it, will slam Moore? “Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets.” So he’s getting flack for something he participated in and presumably supported, and now he was “used to make a buck”? Yeah.
As for “F9/11,” I do think it’s a necessary (and nearly insignificant) counter to years of pro-war propaganda. Why didn’t the press demand more proof? As Amy Goodman of Democracy Now has said: looking at the coverage of the Iraq War by U.S. media, if it had been state-run media, how would it have been different? As for the specific truthfulness of the film, I’ll wait to see it, unlike the White House.
As for the seven minutes, I’ve said again and again that there weren’t just two choices, one being “throwing a fit and hollering.” That’s a false dichotomy and lets the President off the hook for one of the last things he can be judged on. If the school were on fire, but GWB didn’t want to alarm the kids by doing anything for seven minutes byt collecting his thoughts, would that be “mature”? Damn.
Finally, if you think this administration lies less than Michael Moore, then you’re beyond help. As I’ve said a lot recently, if we re-elect GWB, we deserve everything we get. Everything. Enjoy it.
June 22nd, 2004 at 10:37 am
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about “Bowling for Columbine” by Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
June 22nd, 2004 at 3:09 pm
“Finally, if you think this administration lies less than Michael Moore, then you’re beyond help. As I’ve said a lot recently, if we re-elect GWB, we deserve everything we get. Everything. Enjoy it.”
And where exactly do I say I think the current administration lies less than Moore? I never even made the comparison. I don’t think that one side lies more than the other, nor that the lies told by each are comparable on a level of importance.
I, personally, don’t care to say, “Well, he lies less so he’s entirely correct.” No. A liar is a liar. Bush lies, Moore lies, Clinton lied, almost everyone lies. Anyone who lies about even the tiniest thing has no credibility as far as I’m concerned, at least not for some time. The credibility takes longer to regain based on the severity of the lies or hypocricy, or how insistant the person is that they haven’t lied.
Bush and his administration insist they haven’t lied. Moore insists he didn’t lie (put whatever pretty words you want on it — “Misrepresenting small facts to show a greater underlying point” is still lying. The ends don’t justify the means). Both Bush and Moore are bastards in my opinion until they are willing to straight-out say, “Yeah, I lied.”
As for the “Wacko Attacko” link, something tells me that a man who’s willing to label all detractors as “wacko” isn’t standing on the high ground. Also, for as much as he shoots down those who use insults and attacks when speaking against him, isn’t it somewhat… hypocritical… to call those people “wacko”?
June 22nd, 2004 at 5:51 pm
FF: You said, “Yes, I agree that BOTH sides are biased. However, that’s why WE as INTELLIGENT adults who seek the TRUTH need to take both sides into consideration before deciding which side is lying less.” So you were the one comparing how much they lied, not me. You’re the one who called this film “left-wing cinema lies” without seeing a frame of it. And you’re the one who keeps bringing new topics into this discussion. How about we agree to see the film and duke it out after that, huh?
July 7th, 2004 at 8:08 pm
After you go to Fahrenheit 9/11, keep your ticket stub and mail it to:
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500
With a note attached: ‘I saw what you did last summer.'”
July 8th, 2004 at 10:21 am
Those 7 long minutes says all that you need to know about GWB. The commander-and-chief sat for 7 minutes, after being told that America was under attack, while people were running for their lives to get out of the WTC. What general, when told that America was under attack, would sit and read ‘My Pet Goat’ to kiddies. And the lame excuse about projecting calm… He could have CALMLY stood up, CALMLY excused himself and CALMLY walked out the door and then RAN to the car to get to Air Force One, with it’s fully equipped command center, where he could act the commander-and-chief. Instead his people, these brilliant people who were supposed to make up for GWB’s lack of experience (and ability), were communicating on cell phones! But we all know why GWB sat for 7 minutes… it’s because no one told him what to do. We truly have Bozo the President and the dumbest electorate imaginable.