Monday, September 25, 2006

9-11 Press for Truth Analysis Part III

The third ten minute segment of the movie mostly concerns the 9-11 Commission report.

Another odd bit: As New York City Mayor Bloomberg begins his testimony, one of the JGs says, "We begged and pleaded that people should be put under oath." This is just a poor choice from the filmmakers, because what could Bloomberg have to hide? If you recall he wasn't even mayor when 9-11 happened, he was just a candidate for the office. "At the beginning they were not...."

So subsequently they were? Sheesh, you got your way and you're still griping?

Next we get into the crappola about Phillip Zelikow. The movie makes it seem like the Jersey Girls did some crack investigative work.

Kristen Breitweiser: "We have found out that not only did he serve on the transition team for the Bush Administration, that he was a person who wrote a draft memo for the setup of the Bush Administration's National Security Council, that he was an individual who wrote the preemptive war strategy that was eventually used for the war in Iraq, that he's a close friend of Condoleezza Rice's, we want him to resign."

One thing that is soft-played in this film (but it's not hard to read between the lines) is that the Jersey Girls and many of the other family members portrayed in this film are also anti-war activists, who not only opposed the war in Iraq, but also the one in Afghanistan. While informing us of the supposed conflict of interest of Zelikow, the filmmakers make no effort to advise us of conflicts of interest for the family members.

At about 22:00 we hear griping that the commission was not being given the information they needed. Immediate afterwards, there is a complaint that too much information was provided. Somewhat reminiscent of the complaint the two grandmothers had about the food at the nursing home:

Grandma 1: The food here is terrible.
Grandma 2: And such small portions!

Then we get the complaint that classified documents were only viewed by two of the commission members: Republican Zelikow and Democrat Jamie Gorelick. More sinister music, and "At that point I knew the fix was in."

Classified information is classified for a reason. Revealing it to one Republican and one Democrat strikes me as a common sense solution. But of course to the conspiracy nutbars, the Democrats are just as likely to be involved in the coverup as the Republicans. I don't quite know where they get this idiotic notion, but it seems to be pretty pervasive.

Hilariously, the mockumentary goes on to present its first administration hero; Richard Clarke. Never mind that Clarke admitted that he failed in his responsibility to protect the nation from terrorism. He's a hero because he apologized for his mistakes.

Then we get griping about how President Bush and Vice President Cheney insisted on meeting with the commission together, in private, and not under oath. More creepy music. More griping about them not being under oath. But of course if you really believe that Bush was lying about 9-11, do you think that being under oath would change that?

Then the 9-11 Commission Report was issued and we get more griping about that. It didn't answer my questions, complains one of the JGs. What questions were unanswered? They don't specify, but as we have already seen, most of the question that these people are asking have been answered. They just don't like the answers because they don't implicate Bush.

Then we get griping about the fact that the news media pretty much accepted the 9-11 Commission Report as doing a good job. Chris Matthews, hardly an administration shill, asks whether the families, "Can't deal with reality." A Newsweek editor says that the families seem unable to accept that there was no way the attacks could have been stopped. Good thinking, but of course, that's not what the movie wants us to think.

We get griping that the news media, "Failed again and again to connect the dots." Another little aside to the conspiracy crowd. One of the women says that she was hoping for another Woodward and Bernstein. Let me guess, that would result in the impeachment of the President? Is it obvious that's what this is really all about--that the Jersey Girls wanted heads to roll?

Ah, but the Woodward and Bernstein did arise, in the person of Paul Thompson, the man behind this movie. Amusingly one of the women comments that "He would back it up with links to mainstream media sources..." just as the video shows this:



Yeah, that well-known major media source, Mother Jones.

10 Comments:

At 25 September, 2006 08:30, Blogger MarkyX said...

The only thing I agree with is that Cheney and Bush should have testified under oath NOT behind closed doors.

It is the duty of the government to act as a loyal servent to the people. If something went wrong that day, either bad intel, outdated security policies, or some other such reason, the people have the right to know. The people are law-abiding citizens who pay their taxes and respect the laws passed by the government. The government, no matter who is in office, should pay his respects to the people by informing them went wrong.

However, this event has no real concrete evidence of an "inside job" and just another example of 9/11 Press for Truth jumping into conclusions.

 
At 25 September, 2006 11:58, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I actually have a gripe with the "hooplah" over the oath issue. if these people are the arch villians the crowd claims they are, why would an oath be important...do you think it would stop the from lying?

 
At 25 September, 2006 13:32, Blogger Nathan Mcginty said...

ah now, come on. i know that you guys who run this site are republicans, but that doesn't stop me from coming here for some good old LC bashing.

Mother Jones has been around for a while. sure, they're liberal/progressive, but I'd say they'd qualify as a major mainstream media source. Just like I'd qualify American Spectator and National Review as major mainstream sources, too.

I think we can all agree that none of those magazines are anything like "American Free Press".

 
At 25 September, 2006 18:18, Blogger shawn said...

I put Mother Jones on the level of NewsMax.

 
At 26 September, 2006 05:29, Blogger Pepik said...

Mother Jones surely is vastly superior to the majority of publications used by Truthers.

 
At 26 September, 2006 07:35, Blogger Nathan Mcginty said...

"I put Mother Jones on the level of NewsMax."

your party affiliations are showing, boys. Now you're starting to sound like the Troothers. MJ has actually been nominated and for the National Magazine Award several times. Can't we all just get along and let the stupidity of LC bring us all together?

 
At 07 October, 2006 16:52, Blogger John Duffy said...

Again, I helped put this film out there, and I knew there would be people who didnt like it, but some of your "debunks" are a bit silly.

You dont think that in the 9-11 investigation, Bush should have been put under oath? You dont think the American public should know what questions got asked? You don't think the American public should have gotten a transcript of his answers?

Yeah, sorry we complained about that, how absurd of us.

As far as not getting the documents they wanted, you cleverly omit the fact that what the families complained about, was that the commission got boxes and boxes of documents, but not pertinent ones. The commision was bogged down with the time wasting task of sifting through millions of useless pages, in hopes of finding the ones that mattered.

Sen. Max Cleland, a commision member himself, is seen in the film complaining that he wasnt allowed access to certain documents. Its a bit ridiculous that only Gorlick and Zelikow were allowed to see certain documents, that they could only take notes on them (not make copies), and that the White house had to clear the notes before they could be shown to othe commision members.

Maybe this seems like proper, functioning government to you, but sir, it doesn't to me.

 
At 11 October, 2006 04:39, Blogger John Duffy said...

Upon re-reading the bloggers "debunking," I found another tidbit I'd like to comment on.

He calls the information about Zelikow "crappola," and then says that the Jersery Girls have conflicts of interest being that they are antiwar activists. Now, I dont know whether or not they are antiwar activists, but I don't see how that could possibly matter, let alone be called a conflict of interest. They are private citizens, entitled to their opinions.

Phillip Zelikow on the otherhand, was supposed to be investigating the administration, yet was friends with and formerly worked with/for, members of the administration. How could he possibly be expected to be impartial?

If you were being tried for murder, would you want the judge hearing the case to be a relative of the victim? I doubt it.

 
At 30 December, 2006 12:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the photograph of major media sources at the bottom of this article, I notice what seems to be The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ect.. in the SAME CITATION as Mother Jones, which in itself is a reputable publication anyway.

Also, where is the debunking of the 98% of the rest of the facts in movie? Are you able to debunk it or not?

 
At 10 June, 2007 00:43, Blogger jzenman said...

Complete rubbish. Still waiting for your movie that is as interesting and relevant.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home