<p>Maybe he wanted to see how it ended!?!</p>
<p>Adults excuse themselves from children all the time. There was no reason to “freak out”. Simply excuse himself. Someone as important as the president of the United States sometimes gets called out. I’m sure a group of second graders would have understood completely.</p>
<p>He sat there because he was waiting for someone to tell him what to do, period.</p>
<p>I can’t believe that AM and DG are still spouting chatroom drollery from F9-11. Get a new script! </p>
<p>In the meantime, I did watch the first installment of PT-9-11, and I really don’t understand what all the fuss was about. But thanks for making sure that I didn’t forget to watch, in the midst of the Eagles opener and the US Open final. I might have actually missed it, otherwise.</p>
<p>I agree completely that Bush should have continued to read to those children. Competent leaders know to let their staff do their jobs, which, in that instance, involved allowing those closest to the matter to gather the accurate information and come up with options to present to him. Ending the story prematurely, leaving the room, reacting emotionally, etc. would be signs of a very, very weak leader with no or little confidence in his staff. Bush was exactly presidential in that regard. Even more so when he later addressed the country from the Oval office, instead of from a military installation or bunker as Cheney and his advisors recommended.</p>
<p>I watched the first 20 minutes out of curiousity. The best part was the opening credits and after that it was quite dull and confusing with way too many close ups and quick cuts. ( Granted I was trying to cook and watch at the same time) I used to like Thomas Keane- somehow it doesn’t seem right for a member of the 9-11 commission to be putting his stamp on a movie about it. I wonder how much he was payed?</p>
<p>“Bush was exactly presidential in that regard.”</p>
<p>If that is your definition of presidential I can see why you voted for him.</p>
<p>
Yes, someone did post earlier with the concern average Americans would have trouble following the story and sorting things out. I was cooking too, but it wasn’t hard to follow given my vast reservoir of knowledge and great culinary skill.</p>
<p>How did the final cut compare to the pre-release version that was sent around?</p>
<p>Please, please all of you mommies and daddies that were so worried about this movie don’t tell us that you think that this was a hit piece on the fellow who likes to talk about “is”. </p>
<p>That show was a puff piece. What are you guys afraid of? If that movie is such a concern for you then you really shouldn’t be leading our country. What a bunch of wimps.</p>
<p>Perhaps what was shown tonight was not the preview version that had been passed around for a while. Anyone seen the earlier version?</p>
<p>I did read in the newspaper that they were madly editing to try to get some of the offensive material taken out. I didn’t watch, so I don’t know if they succeeded.</p>
<p>I guess we’ll know more tomorrow</p>
<p>Democratic Senators wrote letters threatening ABC’s broadcasting license.</p>
<p>Do I, even as a conservative, find dramatization of 9/11 for any purposes, especially political, offensive? YES.</p>
<p>Do I think it should be silenced? NO.</p>
<p>Never did I call for Fahrenheit 9/11 to be pulled out of theaters (even though those are private enterprises and they could if they’d like to) - never did I call for the New York Times or CNN to be silenced by the government. </p>
<p>The Left constantly call us fascists, I guess it’s not fascism when they do it.</p>
<p>Again, neverborn, broadcast airwaves are governed by a different set of rules than movies in theaters, newspapers, magazines, cable, or any other media.</p>
<p>Fahrenheit 911 was not shown on broadcast media. Nor are the NYT, or CNN. I haven’t seen anyone demanding that this movie should be banned. Whether the airwaves which belong to the public are the proper place for its showing is another matter–this is what is being discussed. No fascism here.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m not a big fan of Clinton. But I do have an interest in truth, which is why I find “docudramas” so dangerous–they make stuff up, and pass if off as facts. That is disturbing. When i read an editorial, I expect to get a point of view. When I read an account of an actual happening, I expect that the facts were not made up. I dn’t care what point of view the making up is in service to. No matter who does it, it’s dangerous.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with Garland that docu-dramas can be a very bad thing. I’d include most Vietnam films and most Oliver Stone (particularly JFK) in that category. Having said that, I thought that the program I watched last night–PT911–was riveting, accurate, and instructive.</p>
<p>I have to say I never saw JFK, for the above reason, nor last night’s film. I will let time tell whether the latter was any more accurate than the former. The one most discussed scene prior to the showing is, by all accounts, wholly made up, but perhaps they decided to cut that out.</p>
<p>Yes, the distinction between movies and the airwaves is correct. However, let’s look at the differences in public reaction to how the dems react vesus how the Republicans reacted to such things. </p>
<p>The result of F911: Dem leaders show up en masse for the opening and treat Michael Moore as a great American; Carter lets him sit next to him at the Dem convention (an act which has made him not only the worst sitting president of our time, but also the worst ex-president in my book). The result of way over-the-top books by Ann Coulter: no official or unofficial endorsement by Republicans. The result of the fictionalized CBS news report on TANG: no official response; no threats about broadcast licenses. The result of PT911: veiled threats from the leaders in Congress about broadcast licenses.</p>
<p>See a pattern here? Yet the dems continue to paint the Republicans as anti-free speech and “fascism”. Riiight!</p>
<p>I think the best analogy to PT 9/11 is when Viacom was forced to withdraw ‘The Reagans’ from broadcast TV and put it on pay cable. If I recall correctly there was legislation pending at the time which would have impacted Viacom ownership of local affiliates.</p>
<p>It seems a bit rich to argue that the networks are secretly conservative (likely a right-wing conspiracy)…or Republican-right leaning.</p>
<p>Money leaning, perhaps, and if that smells Republican to you so be it. But liberals love money, as well, especially in Hollywood they do, however, bemoan the fact that others enjoy having it.</p>
<p>Part I was fine.</p>