Michael Moore's controversial film about 9/11 and President Bush's failure to anticipate and respond to the events was solely an attack on President Bush and his administration.
The lack of precaution to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not to be placed solely on President Bush's shoulders. This was something prior presidents and Bush should have prepared against for many years.
Moore's attacks against Bush were unjustified and felt like Moore had a personal vendetta against the president.
The lack of precaution to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were not to be placed solely on President Bush's shoulders. This was something prior presidents and Bush should have prepared against for many years.
Moore's attacks against Bush were unjustified and felt like Moore had a personal vendetta against the president.
I completely agree with what Chef Boyardee said. It sounded like Moore had a personal vendetta against Bush and he did everything he could to make Bush look bad. What did Moore want Bush to do after the attacks had happened, what done was done. Did Moore want Bush to somehow reverse the attacks. At that point the only thing Bush could have done is damage control. If Moore rationally wanted to blame someone in the government he should have pointed the finger at the FAA for their poor response to the hijacking reports. The threat didn't just start during the Bush presidency, there was a huge threat during Clinton's administration too.
ReplyDeleteWell, Chef, he is allowed to do that with free speech. I don't believe it was necesarily a "direct hit" at bush, but he most certainly has a few lines such as the vacationing bit. Michael Moore is a guy who knows how to convey his thoughts and message without any vulgar actions. He portrayed the events well, but should have focused more on the 911 part of it, and previous actions besides bush. I do agree though that Bush and the previous presidents should have figured out the attacks beforehand
ReplyDeleteChef I completely agree. I think it was a film based off a man's opinion with a strong bias against Bush. Even though Bush was respossible for some of the attack, Moore makes the film seem as though the attacks were solely because of President Bush and his administration. In the film Moore also tends to slightly twist the truth. When Bush was told the country was under attack and to stay calm, Moore then narrates the scene and says that Bush is doing nothing and sitting there for 10 minutes when he should have reacted immediately. That is false because when he was told the news, he was told to stay calm, which im sure was intended to mean wait until he was told to move. This is just Moore making a situation sound worse than it was origanally betrayed trying to sway the watcher toward the way he views President Bush and his administration.
ReplyDeleteI agree with chef Boyardee that this was just made to make Bush look bad. Although i do agree with some of the things they said about what he did when he realized the nation was under attack but the majority was indeed an attack on Bush. It was completely biased and the person obviously had something against Bush. It was hard to believe some of the things said because of the amount of bias on the narrators part.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone. I think that Moore was completely unfair with his accusations against Bush. His expectations for Bush's response to 9/11 were unrealistic. The damage had already been done when Bush was informed about the plane crashes. He wouldn't have been able to reverse what happened and making a scene in front of all of the elementary students would have only made the situation worse.
ReplyDelete