Bush teleconfrence staged - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 10-14-2005, 05:02 AM

Bush held a teleconfrence with troups and made it appear to be an honest interview. But it turns out it was stagged, the questions were provided to the troups and the whole thing was rehursed.

My concerns and questions are the following: Doesn't this count as propeganda? Wouldn't this be using tax payer money to fund the propeganda? Isn't this a violation of the law?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172186,00.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (search) from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan (search) said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (search) and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth (search), an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

shakran · 10-14-2005, 05:11 AM

Well the fact that Bush (read: Rove) staged something to make Bush look good is hardly surprising. The fact that he ordered the soldiers to say exactly what Bush wanted them to say is hardly surprising. The fact that he essentially crafted a lie to attempt to fool the American people into thinking things were rosy and bright in Iraq is hardly surprising.

The REAL surprise is that Fox news reported it without trying to spin it to the favor of the Bush administration. Could this mean Bush has finally pissed off his biggest media supporter?

Charlatan · 10-14-2005, 05:18 AM

I agree with shakran... way to go Fox.

Ustwo · 10-14-2005, 06:05 AM

This may come as a shock to you but Fox news is not a mouthpiece of the Republican party. Some people just got too used to the Dan Ratheresk left wing news for so long they couldn't see that perhaps there were two sides to a story.

highthief · 10-14-2005, 06:32 AM

It does seem a bit like propaganda - he's the C-in-C, he's essentially ordering the men to say and do certain things to his explicit benefit.

But I expect little else from Bush.

pan6467 · 10-14-2005, 06:34 AM

The true question is WHY?

IF things are so rosy in Iraq, then why stage this?

Even if things truly are going well there, this has ruined the people's belief that they are.

Why were the cameras and audio running for all to see the staging being set, and who released it?

This smells of a set-up to truly make Bush look bad, so the question is why and whom?

These past few weeks since Katrina have really sucked for Bush, publicity wise.

- The response and finding out the FEMA Director he placed was not qualified at all.

- The nomination of Meirs, again unqualified.

- The "God told me to invade Iraq" story.

- Rove being tried in the papers and looking guilty as Hell. If he is innocent the press did a job that will ruin him in the public's eyes. And if he is guilty then did he, the man whom W praises as being responsible for his political life, lie to Bush OR is Bush lieing to the people about Rove's innocence?

- Delay being indicted for playing with money.

- GOP Congresspersons distancing themselves from him.

- Wanting Martial Law for the Avian Flu. (I think more than anything just the talk of it scared the GOP enough to start distancing themselves from him.)

- Poll numbers hitting extreme Nixonian lows.

- And now Fox going after him, and not spinning this?

I'd love to hear the GOP who fried Clinton for his staged antics, defend Bush for his staged antics.

Clinton's were not in time of war, or trying to sell anything but himself, Bush's are to sell and flatly lie to the people about the war, about the economy (back when the Chinese boxes were taped over to say "Made in America") and so on.

Maybe people are starting to get scared of this man and truly want to destroy his power before he abuses it further?

Just a guess.

And where does this leave Bush patsies like Robertson and Limbaugh and Coulter and O'Reilly and Hannity and company? How can they keep lieing and making excuses when even the party leaders are starting to distance themselves?

The man behind the curtain is being shown for what he is and he isn't the great and powerful OZ, he's a man who has some serious problems and appears to be falling apart, while those around him are jumping ship and trying to save themselves.

Charlatan · 10-14-2005, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

This may come as a shock to you but Fox news is not a mouthpiece of the Republican party. Some people just got too used to the Dan Ratheresk left wing news for so long they couldn't see that perhaps there were two sides to a story.

Oh! That's right Fox news is fair and balance...

Their news reporters might be just like any other news reporters but their list of personalities, including the likes of O'Reily, are nowhere in the "fair and balanced" ball park.

When I look up "mouthpiece of the Republican party" I see pictures of Fox News personalities.

alansmithee · 10-14-2005, 07:26 AM

People just don't understand what Fox's concept of "fair and balanced" is. They will give both sides generally, but they will slant the focus in favor of one. Most of their personalities are like this, and will have guests/co-hosts arguing a more liberal/democratic side. So that, even if they aren't given equal weight, both sides get presented. I find that the general "news" and not the personality shows that get lumped in with the news programs aren't any worse than CNN or the networks.

Rekna · 10-14-2005, 07:58 AM

Anyone want to address my concerns on state sponsered propeganda and the legality of it?

stevo · 10-14-2005, 08:11 AM

sure, I'll address them.

Its about as much propaganda as any bush Q&A session.

Its not against the law to script out questions. Sorry.

j8ear · 10-14-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Anyone want to address my concerns on state sponsered propeganda and the legality of it?

I'll give it a whirl too:

1. Nothing illegal about it. What-so-ever. Just because people HATE Bush doesn't make everything he does illegal.**

2. EVERY single freaking political event, from a press conference to a long range photograph of a fat assed first lady hugging her philandering husband is a staged, rehearsed, and planned event.

Get used to it, and stop feigning indignation when it happens.

Geez,

-bear

** The amount pure hatred from the left continues to astound me.

highthief · 10-14-2005, 08:52 AM

Propaganda sponsored by the government is illegal in the US. The question is "what is propaganda"? I'm not sure the law, which seems a little toothless, describes that effectively.

Does the government have to explicitly pay someone a cash amount? Or, if a C-in-C commands individual members of the military to be his personal mouthpiece, does that constitute propaganda?

I don't think this really qualifies, but it's certainly making him look weak - again.

raveneye · 10-14-2005, 10:25 AM

It may not have been illegal, but it certainly was pathetic.

Karl Rove must have been a tad distracted to allow that to happen

boatin · 10-14-2005, 10:29 AM

umm, did the amount of pure hatred from the right about Clinton astound you, j8ear? My intent with that question is not to imply that 2 wrongs make a right, but to express my own astonishment.

After watching the Clinton thing, there is no way that pure hatred from one side to the other could astonish me. I'm not even suggesting that the Republicans started it (that's a different discussion) - just asking how anyone could be surprised.

Doesn't it seem like the same thing, coming from the same 'place'? Determining that 'place' might be a worthwhile conversation sometime. Envy? Bitterness? A mix of many things, I'm sure...

samcol · 10-14-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

sure, I'll address them.

Its about as much propaganda as any bush Q&A session.

Its not against the law to script out questions. Sorry.

Gotta love a government that will lie to its people.

Quote:

IF things are so rosy in Iraq, then why stage this?

I think this sums the issue up pretty well.

roachboy · 10-14-2005, 10:39 AM

here is a longer piece on this latest bushdebacle.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401016_pf.html

it is from one of the many curious blog-like features that dailies seem to imagine make them more "relevant" in the present information climate--but as an overview of the fallout from this, it is instructive....

Quote:

Caught on Tape

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 14, 2005; 12:51 PM

White House spokesman Scott McClellan repeatedly insisted that the troops participating in a video conference from Iraq with President Bush yesterday morning hadn't been coached.

But the satellite feed of painstaking rehearsals led by a senior Pentagon official said otherwise.

And as a result, television journalists for once had a field day exposing the sleight of hand to which they are more often accessories.

Up until now, the degree to which most Bush events are meticulously choreographed has not been a great story for TV. That's because the elaborate preparations -- the stage-setting, the screening and prepping of participants, and any number of steps to insure that nothing remotely like dissent intrudes upon the president -- all typically happen behind the curtain.

In fact, TV tends to lap up precisely the kind of stirring, spotless imagery the White House normally cranks out for public consumption.

But yesterday, all that changed when an errant satellite feed fell in their laps.

Suddenly, instead of covering a highly artificial and largely newsless event the normal way -- broadcasting the desired images, playing the hoary sound bytes and making it seem like something new was said -- pretty much everyone today led with the artifice.
On TV

It was extraordinary. Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell spent four full minutes at the top of the NBC Nightly News talking about yesterday's videoconference and the staged nature of so many White House events.

Here's Williams:

"It was billed as a chance for the president to hear directly from the troops in Iraq. The White House called it a 'back and forth,' a 'give and take,' and so reporters who cover the White House were summoned this morning to witness a live video link between the commander in chief and the U.S. soldiers in the field, as the elections approach in Iraq.

"The problem was, before the event was broadcast live on cable TV, the satellite picture from Iraq was being beamed back to television newsrooms here in the U.S. It showed a full-blown rehearsal of the president's questions, in advance, along with the soldiers' answers and coaching from the administration.

"While we should quickly point out this was hardly the first staged political event we have covered -- and we've seen a lot of them in the past -- today's encounter was billed as spontaneous. Instead, it appeared to follow a script."

Williams then turned things over to Mitchell, who showed a brief clip of deputy assistant defense secretary Allison Barber coaching the troops:

"If he gives us a question that is not something that we have scripted, Captain Kennedy, you are going to have that mike and that's your chance to impress us all. Master Sergeant Lombardo, when you are talking about the president coming to see you in New York, take a little breath before that so you can be talking directly to him. You got a real message there, ok?"

Says Mitchell, showing video of Bush on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln: "This isn't the first time the administration used troops to help sell the Iraq war.

"In fact, the Bush White House has choreographed everything from town hall meetings on Social Security to campaign events with planted questions. Many administrations, Democrat and Republican, stage-manage events. Often the news media ignore the choreography."

But the satellite feed, Mitchell concluded, offered "a rare look behind the curtain of a White House trying to sell an increasingly unpopular war."

Here's Terry Moran on ABC last night: "Well, as you know, this is a White House that's prided itself on expert stage managing and polished events of Mr. Bush's public appearances. Today, we got a glimpse behind the scenes.

"It was billed as a simple, straightforward back and forth conversation, a video teleconference between the president and a group of soldiers in Iraq. . . . But those questions, it turns out, came as no surprise to the soldiers. . . .

"Before the president appeared, Allison Barber, a senior Pentagon official, prepped the troops thoroughly, and in a rare White House slip-up, was caught on camera."

Lara Logan reported on the CBS Evening News that Bush's message "was overshadowed by questions about how much staging went into the event."

And even Fox News was in high dudgeon.

Here's Shepard Smith : "At least one senior military official tells Fox News that he is livid over the handling of U.S. troops in Iraq before their talk by satellite live with the president. . . .

"As the White House tries to prop up support for an increasingly unpopular war, today -- to hear it from military brass -- it used soldiers as props on stage.

"One commander tells Fox it was scripted and rehearsed -- the troops were told what to say to the president and how to say it. And that, says another senior officer today, is outrageous.

"It's certainly not the first time a photo op has been staged for the president -- far from it -- but it's the first time we know of that such a staging has touched off such anger."

On comes Carl Cameron: "First, the White House and the Pentagon claimed it was not rehearsed. But for 45 minutes before the event, the hand-picked soldiers practiced their answers with the Pentagon official from D.C. who, in her own words, drilled them on the president's likely questions and their, quote, scripted responses.

"There are folks here at the White House now walking around shaking their heads about how badly it appears to have gone."

On CNN this morning, Miles O'Brien amused himself by apparently reading from a transcript of what Barber said during the rehearsal.

"Here's the part I like," he said. " 'OK, so let's work on that answer a little bit, Captain Kennedy. Why don't you work on -- "We're working with the Iraqi soldiers and to my right is Master Sergeant." ' And then a little later, she says, 'You know, a few smiles wouldn't hurt back here on the TV.' A few smiles."

But it's doubtful that anyone has had as much fun with this story as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who under the rubric "White House follies" last night paired what he called "the president's choreographed satellite back-slapping session with the troops" with "the press secretary's knee-capping session with the White House press corps."

"It's like watching the Jesse Ventura show," he said after showing extensive clips of the troop rehearsal, and the ensuing event.

Olbermann asked Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank to explain what happened.

"It really is inexplicable," Milbank said. "This was a White House that did everything right, in terms of imagery, and now they just seem to have completely lost their mojo on fairly simple things. . . .

"It is tempting to say that none of this would have happened if Karl Rove were still alive, but that is oversimplifying. . . .

"I think what you are seeing here is a White House now sitting at 38 percent in the polls, and it has never been there before, and there's a bit of a panic setting in. They don't really know how to get out of this. They have always operated being out in front before and they don't know how to run it from behind."

David Greene of NPR offers listeners four and a half minutes of audio from the rehearsal. He explains: "While it's common to use a trial run to ensure things go smoothly when the president arrives, the event, recorded by NPR, offered some insights into the meticulous nature of advance work."
In the Papers

Thomas M. DeFrank and Corky Siemaszko write in the New York Daily News: "President Bush's supposedly unscripted Q&A session with the troops in Iraq yesterday was unmasked as a sham when a Pentagon official was caught coaching the soldiers Bush was going to question. . . .

"The White House is notorious for stage-managing Bush's events, notably the town hall meetings where prepicked participants ask Bush carefully screened questions. But it's rare that Bush's handlers get caught doing it so brazenly."

Jim VandeHei , writing in The Washington Post, describes it as "one of the stranger and most awkwardly staged publicity events of the Bush presidency. . . .

"Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was not impressed. 'The American people and our brave troops deserve better than a photo-op for the president and a pep rally about Iraq,' he said. 'They deserve a plan. Unfortunately, today's event only served to highlight the fact that the president refuses to engage in a frank conversation about the realities on the ground.' . . .

"After a day of White House damage control, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence T. Di Rita put out a statement last night apologizing for 'any perception that [the soldiers] were told what to say' at the event. 'It is not the case,' he said. Di Rita said technological challenges prompted government officials to advise the soldiers what questions they would be asked 'solely to help the troops feel at ease during an obviously unique experience.' He said the soldiers decided who would answer."

Warren Vieth and Mark Mazzetti write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush touched off a new round of controversy over his policies in Iraq on Thursday when he conducted a videoconference interview about this weekend's constitutional referendum with a small group of handpicked troops stationed in Iraq who reinforced his upbeat view of the conflict."
The Event

The ultimate irony was that after all that rehearsing -- and maybe because of that rehearsing -- the event seemed awkward at best. It was choreographed, as Olbermann put it, "like your fifth grade class play was choreographed."

Pay close attention -- here's the transcript , here's the video -- and you'll notice that the answers Bush gets to his questions are not very responsive, as if Bush didn't ask the questions in the order the troops were expecting.

Bush asks if the Iraqi troops have improved, and Captain Steven Pratt tells him about all the rehearsals for voting day.

Bush asks what the locals think, and Captain David Williams explains that voter registration is up -- and then describes what someone else has heard from the locals, since he himself evidently hasn't spoken to any.

Bush asks how life has changed since the troops first got there, and Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo tells him about the time she met Bush before in New York after 9/11 -- and then answers his earlier question about whether Iraqi troops have improved.

Bush's own delivery was awkward, and his attempts at bonhomie were stymied by the time-lag.

as for the fox reporting, it is hard to say why they were not true to form in this case, that is why they did not try to spin this to the administration's advantage--perhaps because (1) there was no way to do it or (2) because no matter how far to the right fox is, the folk who work for it are officially journalists and themselves have to put up with the white house's riefenstahl-like obsession with generating the illusion of support for bush (when in fact little remains)---and so in all probability they have their own professional axes to grind with being complicit in the farce that is "information" delivered to you and i, fresh brown and steaming, from the white house.

i do find it more than a little amazing, however, that the white house--following the tradition of propaganda as information developed under reagan--has not been held to account for the way in which it operates until now. why did it take a satellitle feed of rehearsal to bring up the fact of the matter concerning how rove operates, how the white house operates? none of this information about staging, rehearsing etc. and their correlates of distortion etc. is new...this particular feed is, but the pattern it shows in action is as old as this administration. why have the networks played along with it?

albania · 10-14-2005, 11:00 AM

Staged events are a proven political tool, this was not the first and it won't be the last by democrat or republican.

Quote:

Gotta love a government that will lie to its people.

Every government/administration lies to its people in some way. Some lies aren't important, some lies are big, some get caught, and some don't. Doesn't make it right but it's not new either.

alansmithee · 10-14-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

umm, did the amount of pure hatred from the right about Clinton astound you, j8ear? My intent with that question is not to imply that 2 wrongs make a right, but to express my own astonishment.

After watching the Clinton thing, there is no way that pure hatred from one side to the other could astonish me. I'm not even suggesting that the Republicans started it (that's a different discussion) - just asking how anyone could be surprised.

Doesn't it seem like the same thing, coming from the same 'place'? Determining that 'place' might be a worthwhile conversation sometime. Envy? Bitterness? A mix of many things, I'm sure...

I think that many people's feelings about the left's hatred of Bush stem from the fact that they didn't see the same condemnation of similar acts when Clintion was in power. So in essence, they aren't protesting about the actions of the president, they are protesting about the actions of the president they didn't vote for. So it's ok if their guy does it, but if someone else's guy does there will be hell to pay.

And honestly, the vitriol of many Dems/liberals toward Bush is what made me support him more. I used to think of Bush as an inept puppet, elected on name recognition and conning the public. But seeing so many people who I tend to disagree with ideologically hate him so much started making me think that maybe there's something more to him. Point being I think the Dems would be more convincing if they didn't attempt to pick apart every little thing so much in the Bush admin., especially after what they let slide in the Clinton admin.Then when they made an outcry about something truly serious, it wouldn't be quite so easily dismissed as yet another Dem attack. And there wouldn't be the big stink of hypocrisy about so many of their actions.

pig · 10-14-2005, 11:19 AM

well alan, i think both sides of the craptastic two party system can play that came ad infinitum. intersting quasi-machiavellan thing you've got going. enemies of my enemies are my friends kind of thing. i don't think you can really count on there being much more to bush, just because you don't like democrats. personally, i find most ardent clinton supporters to be a little nauseating, but it certainly doesn't make me think " damn, bush must be a lot better than i thought"

to the original thread intention: it's pretty crappy that they tried to sell a scripted / rehearsed event as a spontaneous sparring with the troops, but really who is fooled here? i mean, 1. no president is going to have some unscripted *televised* chat with random troops. "how's it going in iraq, boys?" "well mr. president, it sucks ass. it's hot and people are constantly shooting at me. i'm not poly-sci major, but it looks like all shit might break loose tomorrow, no matter how many sand bags we lay down for cover. fuck, i just want to fuck my wife a few more times before i die. is that so much to ask for?" i mean, it's not going to happen. 2. of course there's going to be some level of coaching. i despise bush, but i'd probably be a little nervous talking with the pres on live tv.

my problem isn't with the event, per say , but with the way it was apparently billed. but the fact that national level politicians are duplicitous is no surprise; i believe it's systemic of our political system. but that's anther story.

roachboy · 10-14-2005, 11:52 AM

you might actually consider that people oppose geroge w bush because of his policies and not on account of some tit-for-tat rooted in how the right treated clinton (which was appalling--and nothing from "the left" directed at bush comes close to it)...people can oppose george w bush on completely rational grounds---the topics are obvious, the divisions are as well. i am not sure what function it serves for the lumpenright to pretend that the dynamics that animate their particular, kinda strange political movement(s) are paralleled by anything outside the right, or to reduce criticisms of bush to questions of "hatred"----cultivating that particular emotion is a conservative trick, something that is again, not paralleled by any space outside the right (at least not in its centralized. highly co-ordinated fashion).

well..actually it is pretty obvious why lumpenconservatives would prefer to pretend that opposition to bush works exlcusively on psychological grounds--it functions as an obvious way to dismiss all criticisms of this administration...

it is kinda curious to see this being trotted out in the context of a thread about the bushsquad screwing up a triumph of the will-like event, but maybe this kind of thing really concerns the lumpenconservatives and this is how they express anxiety. it's hard to know.

powerclown · 10-14-2005, 12:18 PM

Remove the opium pipes, masses, and try to pay attention.

--

Millions of Iraqis vote on the future of their country TOMORROW, October 15, 2005. And why are they able to do this, and not instead be horrendously melted into puddles of toxic flesh by anthrax-spewing helicopters?

Because of the vision of one man:
George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America.

"DEMOCRACY -- One Dictatorship At A Time"

hrandani · 10-14-2005, 12:36 PM

I hope to God that "Better than Saddam Hussein" isn't the ultimate justification of Bush's worth as a president.

Because you know, that would be really fucking sad.

CSflim · 10-14-2005, 12:49 PM

That Bush reads from a script doesn't exactly surprise me.
What is terribly amusing is that he can't even do that right

(re-watch it and notice that at times he throws the soldiers at times by asking the wrong question at the wrong time/to the wrong person)

raveneye · 10-14-2005, 12:53 PM

Hundreds of passengers on the Titanic will be rearranging deck chairs TOMORROW, October 15.

pig · 10-14-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Remove the opium pipes, masses, and try to pay attention.

--

Millions of Iraqis vote on the future of their country TOMORROW, October 15, 2005. And why are they able to do this, and not instead be horrendously melted into puddles of toxic flesh by anthrax-spewing helicopters?

Because of the vision of one man:
George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America.

"DEMOCRACY -- One Dictatorship At A Time"

dude, i think that in the midst of the shit that's going on over there, it's a little premature to call this one a success. i mean, russia had "elections" for a long time. North Korea has 'em. Iran just had one. I really really really hope that this thing works out, but it's looking sort of bleak from what I'm given to understand. that place is a big stinking pile of shit, and we stepped right smack in the middle of it.

roach I think you're going to have a tough time making a solid point that it's only the right that spews "hatred" of the other side. I mean, I hate to say it, but you're a decent example at times yourself. Your very vocabulary is tailored to show fundamental disdain of the administration with all the "bushspeak" and "reichenreichen" crap all the time. I think it's safe to say that when you invoke Godwin on a regular basis, there's some hatred there, in as far as I understand the terminology and the play of semantics on it. You can argue its justified if you like, but to deny that it's there might be a little disengenous.

martinguerre · 10-14-2005, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Hundreds of passengers on the Titanic will be rearranging deck chairs TOMORROW, October 15.

Will there be live music?

j8ear · 10-14-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

umm, did the amount of pure hatred from the right about Clinton astound you, j8ear?

Yes it did.

-b-

maximusveritas · 10-14-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

It may not have been illegal, but it certainly was pathetic.

My thoughts exactly.
This just shows how desperate the Bush administration is getting. They couldn't even manage to do it without playing the 9-11 card. And the Iraqi guy telling President Bush "I like you" was so funny you didn't even need Jon Stewart to laugh about it.

roachboy · 10-14-2005, 02:13 PM

pigglet: i admit that i have a healthy contempt for conservative ideology and find its way of deploying under bush to be a kind of fascism-lite. but to impute anything on the order of hatred to me or anyone else is nothing more or less than an act of projection on your part.
the playing field, if you like, is not symetrical--so far as i am concerned, for conservatives not to accept responsibility for the centrality of negative affect to their politics is disengenuous. as is the pretense, particular to the right, that somehow or another these features of their politics are reactions to modes and/or forces that are inflicted upon them from the outside.

but this is a curious place for this kind of discussion, dont you think?
the thread is about the errant satellite feed and its consequences--a moment of self-demolition of the white house's particular brand of consensus-hallucination. dont you find it interesting that there are so many dissociative remarks from conservative folk in this, of all threads?
i find it kind of funny.

at any rate, i have other things to do so will check out with this---i have no problem with having and maintaining an attitude of contempt for conservative politics. but i do not hate anyone. it is not worth the energy to hate people. it is not something i indulge. sorry.

raveneye · 10-14-2005, 04:35 PM

Yeah, the live music will be Ahmed Chalabi and Judith Miller singing a duet, Funeral March of the Marionettes.

pig · 10-14-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

pigglet: i admit that i have a healthy contempt for conservative ideology and find its way of deploying under bush to be a kind of fascism-lite.

no...say it ain't so

but seriously, let's put it this way. maybe it's not hatred, and i only used that as an potential example - seemed maybe pertinent - but i think maybe you could see where one might get that impression. i have no interest in trying to argue definitions and semantics, but certain choices of words and ways of describing the bush administration might leave one thinking. don't get me wrong, i'm no fan.

Quote:

but to impute anything on the order of hatred to me or anyone else is nothing more or less than an act of projection on your part.

that might be a little strong, i think, unless you're interested in fairly tangental discussion of psychology and the inherent necessity of projection in the process of making judgements, in which case i'd certainly have to say "of course. we all do." otherwise, i'm not sure i agree, but i guess maybe. i wouldn't personally count myself a "conservative," but i guess that depends on who's judging, etc.

in any event, i guarrantee you that if you inspect any portion or social subgroup of our population, and select their most ardent hardliners, you'll find some hatred. i mean, if you don't feel you fit the bill, how about jaenine garafollo (sp?). I don't think she'd even try to protest the fact that she hates rush. ask her. i'll bet she'll admit it with glee. i wish she wasn't so whiny when she argued, because i think she's pretty funny and kind of hot - but i guess that's a different thing altogether.

Quote:

but this is a curious place for this kind of discussion, dont you think?
the thread is about the errant satellite feed and its consequences--a moment of self-demolition of the white house's particular brand of consensus-hallucination. dont you find it interesting that there are so many dissociative remarks from conservative folk in this, of all threads?

well, not really. i think it's typical strawman argumentation to some extent that shows up a lot, and i think that its kind of expected given the nature of the thread. i mean, these things typically lose their original intent after 10 posts anyways. etc.

in any event, don't get wrong - i didn't mean to attack you, but only use some of your posting style as an example in the "rightwing hate speech" stuff that I think you may have brought in with this :

Quote:

"reduce criticisms of bush to questions of "hatred"----cultivating that particular emotion is a conservative trick"

and that it shows up on the "left" too. if you feel i wrongly mischaracterized you, i apologize. i tend to agree with many of your positions, but i simply thought some of the underpinning of your positions might be interesting.

regardless - none of this detracts from the fact that this is certainly business as usual in the big politics game. i'm just not surprised by it any more. i think it's going to take serious change in our government to knock this crap out, even for a temporary period of time between corrupt regimes.

pig · 10-14-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Yeah, the live music will be Ahmed Chalabi and Judith Miller singing a duet, Funeral March of the Marionettes.

i bet she can play a mean harmonica after that jail time...god knows chalabi knows how to whine and tell a good tale. they'll be a hit.

/tomorrow is going to be so aybabtu it's not even funny. good weekend all

irateplatypus · 10-14-2005, 05:12 PM

this dialogue between the President and soldiers was most certainly "staged" in a way... but that doesn't make the whole thing false.

from what i've read, the pentagon official (or whoever the handler was from stateside) was giving them tips about how to present themselves w/out appearing nervous and making sure each knew what types of questions would be handled by which specific soldiers.

this approach is quite common among military presentations... a SME (subject matter expert) will be designated from a group of potential speakers for a specific subject. if questions about said subject arise... it's much better not to have a less-informed (but more vocal) person jump in w/a response. the SME will say his piece first and others will add to it as necessary. this is better for the speakers (the SME won't have to cut the legs out from under anyone by contradiction) and the listener (a cohesive answer from the most knowledgeable). i come from a daily observance of this protocol, watching the pentagon coach from this perspective didn't raise many alarm flags.

let's face it people, this televised photo op was less staged than every Presidential debate last year. it's a curious thing to see the behind-the-scenes pieces of the whole political machine, but they're always there. partisans making political hay out of this are either 1) incredibly naive to this think has any significance or 2) purposefully blinding themselves to the realities of political posturing across the board.

JumpinJesus · 10-14-2005, 06:45 PM

I think we can all agree that both parties regularly engage in staged media events in the hopes of making them seem spontaneous. My beef is not with them for doing this. My beef is almost always with the media and how they handle situations like this.

The media readily acknowledges that they have known all along how the Bush administration constantly micromanages all press events to prevent any impromptu moments that might catch the president off balance. Bush has been in office almost 5 years now. Why, then, is the media all of a sudden all over this story? Because the media is spineless.

The media waits until his numbers are low enough, then come out and say, "yeah, he's been doing this all along, we've just never said anything about it."

They've been willing pawns to this administration all along and were so terrified of being labelled biased or losing access that they took it up the arse whenever possible in order to get "leads" or interviews or whatever bone the white house threw at them. Instead of doing their jobs of holding our elected officials accountable for their statements and actions, they wagged their tails and and rubbed up against the legs of this administration. Now, they feel they've been cheated by having this satellite feed broadcast and at first they acted shocked - Shocked! - that such an event took place. Emboldened by Bush's slipping numbers, suddenly they find a few vertebrae and do a mediocre impression of the free press. Had the press done their jobs since day one instead of feeding at the teat of the Rove Machine, we might not be in the huge mess we now find ourselves.

I don't blame the Bush administration so much for doing what they've been doing because they've been getting away with it long enough to think they'd get away with it for the duration of their stay. I blame the media for acting like fawning fans for five years.

shakran · 10-14-2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Remove the opium pipes, masses, and try to pay attention.

Ahh yes, insult those who disagree with republican Party Doctrine. Republican strategy proceeding as planned.

Quote:

Millions of Iraqis vote on the future of their country TOMORROW, October 15, 2005.

That's nice. Let's not crow about that just yet. Let's wait until the Iraqi civil war is over. Because it's coming.

Quote:

And why are they able to do this, and not instead be horrendously melted into puddles of toxic flesh by anthrax-spewing helicopters?

1) Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction. So he didn't have anthrax.

2) Anthrax doesn't melt people. Please try to get at least ONE fact per post right.

3) It's not our place to force countries to hold elections. It's not our right either.

Quote:

Because of the vision of one man:
George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America.

One nutcase who likes playing army. Look, it's all well and good to sit in your nice safe house in the middle of the USA and be gleeful that other people have to go and fight this war that you're so excited about.

Quite frankly, you haven't had to go into the house of a woman who just found out her kid got blown up by a roadside bomb and interview her. I have. Far too many times. There are times when war is worth it, and those times are when it is necessary to defend your country from an attacking enemy. Iraq didn't attack us, they were only our enemies because we decided to make them so, and this war was NOT a necessity. And if you really look at the faces of these incredibly young men (closer to boys really) that we're forcing into Iraq and you realise that they're being made to fight, be maimed, and die, all because of a fake quest for weapons of mass destruction (sorry, but that crap about bringing democracy isn't going to distract anyone with intelligence from the fact that this was NOT the original reason given), if you REALLY look at who's suffering because of our 43rd president, you'll be forced to disagree with him too.

Redlemon · 10-15-2005, 06:14 AM

Here's the quote that set the media off:

Quote:

In this morning's gaggle, Scott McClellan got asked whether the teleconference the president had with troops in Tikrit was scripted. Here's what he said ...

QUESTION: How were they selected, and are their comments to the president pre-screened, any questions or anything...

MCCLELLAN: No.

QUESTION: Not at all?

MCCLELLAN: This is a back-and-forth.

Which is clearly a lie. Continue with the discussion.

shakran · 10-15-2005, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

I don't blame the Bush administration so much for doing what they've been doing because they've been getting away with it long enough to think they'd get away with it for the duration of their stay. I blame the media for acting like fawning fans for five years.

Pretty much right on the nose. I agree, the media's dropped the ball bigtime, and I'm a member of the media (unfortunately not slated to cover the whitehouse). But there are signs that at least some in the media are learning their lessons. They've been questioning the administration much harder this year than in any previous Bush year. Naturally the republicans view this as media bias, since any story that doesn't make them out to be gods in the flesh is clearly biased against them, but hopefully this time the head honchos in the media won't listen.

FWIW, they dropped the ball during Clinton's presidency too - and the republicans were happy to help them. Instead of concentrating on that idiotic sex scandal which didn't mean anything as far as how the country was being run, the media should have concentrated on bin Laden's growing animosity toward the US. After all, he bombed the WTC during Clinton's presidency too, not to mention the Cole, and Clinton put his hands over his eyes and hoped the problem would go away. The press should have held him accountable for that and asked him why he wasn't doing squat about terrorism then, but they were too busy getting titilated by presidential liasons.

highthief · 10-16-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Because of the vision of one man:
George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America.

Best giggle I've had all day, thanks!

JumpinJesus · 10-16-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Pretty much right on the nose. I agree, the media's dropped the ball bigtime, and I'm a member of the media (unfortunately not slated to cover the whitehouse). But there are signs that at least some in the media are learning their lessons. They've been questioning the administration much harder this year than in any previous Bush year. Naturally the republicans view this as media bias, since any story that doesn't make them out to be gods in the flesh is clearly biased against them, but hopefully this time the head honchos in the media won't listen.

FWIW, they dropped the ball during Clinton's presidency too - and the republicans were happy to help them. Instead of concentrating on that idiotic sex scandal which didn't mean anything as far as how the country was being run, the media should have concentrated on bin Laden's growing animosity toward the US. After all, he bombed the WTC during Clinton's presidency too, not to mention the Cole, and Clinton put his hands over his eyes and hoped the problem would go away. The press should have held him accountable for that and asked him why he wasn't doing squat about terrorism then, but they were too busy getting titilated by presidential liasons.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, here, shakran. It seems that many reporters are too nervous to ever actually hold officials' feet to the fire. It isn't until their poll numbers drop that the tough questions start getting asked. I remember that before Bush was elected, he was often drilled by reporters who didn't take him seriously as a national candidate. Once he was elected, however, the drilling ceased. Now that his numbers are down, the hard questioning starts again.

It's the timidness by the media in the face of our government that allows them to get away with as much as they do, I believe.

jwoody · 10-17-2005, 02:25 AM

Tony Blair is grilled every Wednesday by his opposition in parliament and he does a press conference once a month.

Does the American president suffer a similar, regular interrogation?

10-14-2005, 05:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with shakran... way to go Fox. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-14-2005, 06:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	This may come as a shock to you but Fox news is not a mouthpiece of the Republican party. Some people just got too used to the Dan Ratheresk left wing news for so long they couldn't see that perhaps there were two sides to a story. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 10-14-2005 at 06:10 AM..

10-14-2005, 06:32 AM	#5 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	It does seem a bit like propaganda - he's the C-in-C, he's essentially ordering the men to say and do certain things to his explicit benefit. But I expect little else from Bush. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-14-2005, 06:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	The true question is WHY? IF things are so rosy in Iraq, then why stage this? Even if things truly are going well there, this has ruined the people's belief that they are. Why were the cameras and audio running for all to see the staging being set, and who released it? This smells of a set-up to truly make Bush look bad, so the question is why and whom? These past few weeks since Katrina have really sucked for Bush, publicity wise. - The response and finding out the FEMA Director he placed was not qualified at all. - The nomination of Meirs, again unqualified. - The "God told me to invade Iraq" story. - Rove being tried in the papers and looking guilty as Hell. If he is innocent the press did a job that will ruin him in the public's eyes. And if he is guilty then did he, the man whom W praises as being responsible for his political life, lie to Bush OR is Bush lieing to the people about Rove's innocence? - Delay being indicted for playing with money. - GOP Congresspersons distancing themselves from him. - Wanting Martial Law for the Avian Flu. (I think more than anything just the talk of it scared the GOP enough to start distancing themselves from him.) - Poll numbers hitting extreme Nixonian lows. - And now Fox going after him, and not spinning this? I'd love to hear the GOP who fried Clinton for his staged antics, defend Bush for his staged antics. Clinton's were not in time of war, or trying to sell anything but himself, Bush's are to sell and flatly lie to the people about the war, about the economy (back when the Chinese boxes were taped over to say "Made in America") and so on. Maybe people are starting to get scared of this man and truly want to destroy his power before he abuses it further? Just a guess. And where does this leave Bush patsies like Robertson and Limbaugh and Coulter and O'Reilly and Hannity and company? How can they keep lieing and making excuses when even the party leaders are starting to distance themselves? The man behind the curtain is being shown for what he is and he isn't the great and powerful OZ, he's a man who has some serious problems and appears to be falling apart, while those around him are jumping ship and trying to save themselves. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-14-2005 at 06:40 AM..

10-14-2005, 08:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	sure, I'll address them. Its about as much propaganda as any bush Q&A session. Its not against the law to script out questions. Sorry. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

10-14-2005, 05:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	Well the fact that Bush (read: Rove) staged something to make Bush look good is hardly surprising. The fact that he ordered the soldiers to say exactly what Bush wanted them to say is hardly surprising. The fact that he essentially crafted a lie to attempt to fool the American people into thinking things were rosy and bright in Iraq is hardly surprising. The REAL surprise is that Fox news reported it without trying to spin it to the favor of the Bush administration. Could this mean Bush has finally pissed off his biggest media supporter?

10-14-2005, 07:26 AM	#8 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	People just don't understand what Fox's concept of "fair and balanced" is. They will give both sides generally, but they will slant the focus in favor of one. Most of their personalities are like this, and will have guests/co-hosts arguing a more liberal/democratic side. So that, even if they aren't given equal weight, both sides get presented. I find that the general "news" and not the personality shows that get lumped in with the news programs aren't any worse than CNN or the networks.

10-14-2005, 07:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Anyone want to address my concerns on state sponsered propeganda and the legality of it?

10-14-2005, 08:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Propaganda sponsored by the government is illegal in the US. The question is "what is propaganda"? I'm not sure the law, which seems a little toothless, describes that effectively. Does the government have to explicitly pay someone a cash amount? Or, if a C-in-C commands individual members of the military to be his personal mouthpiece, does that constitute propaganda? I don't think this really qualifies, but it's certainly making him look weak - again. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

10-14-2005, 10:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	It may not have been illegal, but it certainly was pathetic. Karl Rove must have been a tad distracted to allow that to happen

10-14-2005, 10:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	umm, did the amount of pure hatred from the right about Clinton astound you, j8ear? My intent with that question is not to imply that 2 wrongs make a right, but to express my own astonishment. After watching the Clinton thing, there is no way that pure hatred from one side to the other could astonish me. I'm not even suggesting that the Republicans started it (that's a different discussion) - just asking how anyone could be surprised. Doesn't it seem like the same thing, coming from the same 'place'? Determining that 'place' might be a worthwhile conversation sometime. Envy? Bitterness? A mix of many things, I'm sure...

10-14-2005, 11:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	well alan, i think both sides of the craptastic two party system can play that came ad infinitum. intersting quasi-machiavellan thing you've got going. enemies of my enemies are my friends kind of thing. i don't think you can really count on there being much more to bush, just because you don't like democrats. personally, i find most ardent clinton supporters to be a little nauseating, but it certainly doesn't make me think " damn, bush must be a lot better than i thought" to the original thread intention: it's pretty crappy that they tried to sell a scripted / rehearsed event as a spontaneous sparring with the troops, but really who is fooled here? i mean, 1. no president is going to have some unscripted televised chat with random troops. "how's it going in iraq, boys?" "well mr. president, it sucks ass. it's hot and people are constantly shooting at me. i'm not poly-sci major, but it looks like all shit might break loose tomorrow, no matter how many sand bags we lay down for cover. fuck, i just want to fuck my wife a few more times before i die. is that so much to ask for?" i mean, it's not going to happen. 2. of course there's going to be some level of coaching. i despise bush, but i'd probably be a little nervous talking with the pres on live tv. my problem isn't with the event, per say , but with the way it was apparently billed. but the fact that national level politicians are duplicitous is no surprise; i believe it's systemic of our political system. but that's anther story. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

10-14-2005, 11:52 AM	#20 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you might actually consider that people oppose geroge w bush because of his policies and not on account of some tit-for-tat rooted in how the right treated clinton (which was appalling--and nothing from "the left" directed at bush comes close to it)...people can oppose george w bush on completely rational grounds---the topics are obvious, the divisions are as well. i am not sure what function it serves for the lumpenright to pretend that the dynamics that animate their particular, kinda strange political movement(s) are paralleled by anything outside the right, or to reduce criticisms of bush to questions of "hatred"----cultivating that particular emotion is a conservative trick, something that is again, not paralleled by any space outside the right (at least not in its centralized. highly co-ordinated fashion). well..actually it is pretty obvious why lumpenconservatives would prefer to pretend that opposition to bush works exlcusively on psychological grounds--it functions as an obvious way to dismiss all criticisms of this administration... it is kinda curious to see this being trotted out in the context of a thread about the bushsquad screwing up a triumph of the will-like event, but maybe this kind of thing really concerns the lumpenconservatives and this is how they express anxiety. it's hard to know. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-14-2005, 12:18 PM	#21 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Remove the opium pipes, masses, and try to pay attention. -- Millions of Iraqis vote on the future of their country TOMORROW, October 15, 2005. And why are they able to do this, and not instead be horrendously melted into puddles of toxic flesh by anthrax-spewing helicopters? Because of the vision of one man: George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States of America. "DEMOCRACY -- One Dictatorship At A Time"

10-14-2005, 12:36 PM	#22 (permalink)
hrandani Insane	I hope to God that "Better than Saddam Hussein" isn't the ultimate justification of Bush's worth as a president. Because you know, that would be really fucking sad.

10-14-2005, 12:49 PM	#23 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	That Bush reads from a script doesn't exactly surprise me. What is terribly amusing is that he can't even do that right (re-watch it and notice that at times he throws the soldiers at times by asking the wrong question at the wrong time/to the wrong person) __________________

10-14-2005, 12:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Hundreds of passengers on the Titanic will be rearranging deck chairs TOMORROW, October 15.

10-14-2005, 02:13 PM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	pigglet: i admit that i have a healthy contempt for conservative ideology and find its way of deploying under bush to be a kind of fascism-lite. but to impute anything on the order of hatred to me or anyone else is nothing more or less than an act of projection on your part. the playing field, if you like, is not symetrical--so far as i am concerned, for conservatives not to accept responsibility for the centrality of negative affect to their politics is disengenuous. as is the pretense, particular to the right, that somehow or another these features of their politics are reactions to modes and/or forces that are inflicted upon them from the outside. but this is a curious place for this kind of discussion, dont you think? the thread is about the errant satellite feed and its consequences--a moment of self-demolition of the white house's particular brand of consensus-hallucination. dont you find it interesting that there are so many dissociative remarks from conservative folk in this, of all threads? i find it kind of funny. at any rate, i have other things to do so will check out with this---i have no problem with having and maintaining an attitude of contempt for conservative politics. but i do not hate anyone. it is not worth the energy to hate people. it is not something i indulge. sorry. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-14-2005, 04:35 PM	#30 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	Yeah, the live music will be Ahmed Chalabi and Judith Miller singing a duet, Funeral March of the Marionettes.

10-14-2005, 05:12 PM	#33 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	this dialogue between the President and soldiers was most certainly "staged" in a way... but that doesn't make the whole thing false. from what i've read, the pentagon official (or whoever the handler was from stateside) was giving them tips about how to present themselves w/out appearing nervous and making sure each knew what types of questions would be handled by which specific soldiers. this approach is quite common among military presentations... a SME (subject matter expert) will be designated from a group of potential speakers for a specific subject. if questions about said subject arise... it's much better not to have a less-informed (but more vocal) person jump in w/a response. the SME will say his piece first and others will add to it as necessary. this is better for the speakers (the SME won't have to cut the legs out from under anyone by contradiction) and the listener (a cohesive answer from the most knowledgeable). i come from a daily observance of this protocol, watching the pentagon coach from this perspective didn't raise many alarm flags. let's face it people, this televised photo op was less staged than every Presidential debate last year. it's a curious thing to see the behind-the-scenes pieces of the whole political machine, but they're always there. partisans making political hay out of this are either 1) incredibly naive to this think has any significance or 2) purposefully blinding themselves to the realities of political posturing across the board. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

10-14-2005, 06:45 PM	#34 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	I think we can all agree that both parties regularly engage in staged media events in the hopes of making them seem spontaneous. My beef is not with them for doing this. My beef is almost always with the media and how they handle situations like this. The media readily acknowledges that they have known all along how the Bush administration constantly micromanages all press events to prevent any impromptu moments that might catch the president off balance. Bush has been in office almost 5 years now. Why, then, is the media all of a sudden all over this story? Because the media is spineless. The media waits until his numbers are low enough, then come out and say, "yeah, he's been doing this all along, we've just never said anything about it." They've been willing pawns to this administration all along and were so terrified of being labelled biased or losing access that they took it up the arse whenever possible in order to get "leads" or interviews or whatever bone the white house threw at them. Instead of doing their jobs of holding our elected officials accountable for their statements and actions, they wagged their tails and and rubbed up against the legs of this administration. Now, they feel they've been cheated by having this satellite feed broadcast and at first they acted shocked - Shocked! - that such an event took place. Emboldened by Bush's slipping numbers, suddenly they find a few vertebrae and do a mediocre impression of the free press. Had the press done their jobs since day one instead of feeding at the teat of the Rove Machine, we might not be in the huge mess we now find ourselves. I don't blame the Bush administration so much for doing what they've been doing because they've been getting away with it long enough to think they'd get away with it for the duration of their stay. I blame the media for acting like fawning fans for five years. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

10-17-2005, 02:25 AM	#40 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	Tony Blair is grilled every Wednesday by his opposition in parliament and he does a press conference once a month. Does the American president suffer a similar, regular interrogation? __________________ .