Bush-Cheney propaganda, fresh from Iraq!

[rjung]

Not much of a rant here, because I’m feeling slightly uninspired right now, but I’m sure y’all can toss in your own expletives:

Bush Loyalists Pack Iraq Press Office
Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq. Dan Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham, the Michigan Republican who’s now Energy Secretary, heads the office packed with former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill staffers.

One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush’s re-election effort with Iraq a top concern.

…The U.S. team stands in deep contrast to the British team that works alongside it, almost all of whom are civil or foreign service employees, not political appointees. Many of the British in Iraq display regional knowledge or language skills that most of the Americans lack.

…“Iraq is in danger of costing George W. Bush his presidency and the CPA’s media staff are determined to see that does not happen,” Robison said. “I had the impression in dealing with the civilians in the Green Room that they viewed their job as essentially political, promoting what the Coalition Provisional Authority is doing in Iraq as a political arm of the Bush administration,” he added.

Random thought: if these folks are there to put Bush in the White House for anothter four years, shouldn’t they be paid with Bush re-election money, and not nonpartisan taxpayer dollars? Or am I being hopelessly naive again?

[Grey]

Well any government appointee/bureaucrat is there to do accomplish a goal. Presidents run based on their record of accomplishments which are achieved by those appointees/bureaucrats. You’re suggesting that by attempting to achieve a stable Iraq, they are specifically trying to win an election for Bush when they are likely trying to achieve a directive from the executive.

[wring]

many positions w/in the government are political appointees (the Cabinet, judges, ambassadors) and are paid via tax payer $$.

There’s so much to pit Bush over, why bother w/this?

[jayjay]

Yeah, it’s small beans, but I think it is symptomatic of what’s wrong with the Bush White House.

I forget exactly where I read it (thus, no cite) but I think it was in reference to things said by O’Neill, that the Bush administration is the most political administration ever, in the sense that the president’s advisors and aides, rather than being focused on policy, are focused on politics. It’s basically a rivalry between the wonks and the hacks, and the hacks win in the Bush WH. Everything is looked at through a political lens. Rather than having people around him who can get things done right for the people, he has people around him that can make him look good in the media.

Rather than having professional media liaisons in his Bagdad press office, he has political hacks who spin spin spin to make this administration look good, to the gullible, anyway.

[World_Eater]

@wring

There’s so much to pit Bush over, why bother w/this?

Because those morons that can’t see bush is insane need to be beat about the head with anything and everything, until they wake up and join reality.

[UncleBeer]

Good snippets, rjung! Here’s another that somehow escaped you:

Senor, spokesman for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, said his office is guided by ethical “red lines” that prevent it from crossing into the Bush campaign.
“We have an obligation to communicate with the U.S. Congress and the American people, given that they’re spending almost $20 billion in Iraq and have committed over 100,000 U.S. troops here,” Senor said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Ooooh. Here’s a better one:

Putting a sharp strategist like him in the press room is a campaign masterstroke, said Bob Boorstin of the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan political think-tank in Washington.

. . .

"Is that a surprise? No. Would Democrats do it? Yes. . . .

[wring]

@World Eater

Because those morons that can’t see bush is insane need to be beat about the head with anything and everything, until they wake up and join reality.

you really believe that folks who’ve ‘overlooked’ that they got hoodwinked into a war that’s taken nearly 600 (and counting) American soldiers, that my grandchildren will be paying off, all for the sake of a buck seventy a week savings in a tax cut will react to this with “ohmygosh Bush = Bad” ??
jayjay - I understand your view, but this example doesn’t (IMHO) really showcase the issue (especially as framed by the OP - hell why not emphasize that they’re apparently not particularly qualified vs. their political affiliation etc.). But, again, now is not the time for preaching to the choir. We get it.

And propping up this sort of shit will not change the opinions of the terminally clueless (and we know who they are), and will only serve to get a :rolleyes: from those thinking conservatives who may be convinced if we stop all of this handwaving over petty shit (Look - over there Bush glowered at a puppy!), and focus attention on the real issues.

[World_Eater]

@wring

you really believe that folks who’ve ‘overlooked’ that they got hoodwinked into a war that’s taken nearly 600 (and counting) American soldiers, that my grandchildren will be paying off, all for the sake of a buck seventy a week savings in a tax cut will react to this with “ohmygosh Bush = Bad” ??

Hey some people need 306 straws to break their backs, some need less , some more.

Who knows which number this latest thing is, we just need to keep exposing them.

[wring]

and if a giant Sequoia didn’t do it, I rather doubt that a paper straw will. Those folks are a lost cause. and this sort of tactic alienates the folks who aren’t a lost cause.

[Jackmannii]

Yeah, this Iraq Press Office business stinks.

We need a truly impartial team of investigative reporters like we had when the military distributed war news in Vietnam under the Kennedy Administration, the Johnson Administration and the Nixon Administration.

[rjung]

UncleBeer, if you think I’m going to believe Senor’s claims about the “ethical red lines” on his say-so, you must think I’m as gullible as you are.

And Bob Boorstin’s comment is an unsubstantiated straw-man argument. When the Democrats pull some shit like this, then we’ll ding 'em, not before.

[UncleBeer]

But you’re ready to believe the rest of the story without additional substantiation, including a number of critical quotes printed without attribution. Seems it’s only the portions of the story that fit your preconceived notions that you’re willing to believe. How . . . partisan.

[wring]

See what I mean, now jay jay?

[London_Calling]

Interesting and unusual angle for AP, reporting on the reporting - not normally their bag.

Perhaps indicative of things becoming strained over there, reporting-wise. Perhaps not, but it reads like a ‘you-should-know-this’ to me, for what it’s worth.

I suspect the media pool are not happy bunnies at all, at the moment . . . perhaps a shot acrosss the bows of the Iraq Press Office.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Uncle Beer:

I don’t get your point. What possible difference would it make if the Office of Strategic Communications was staffed by Democrats? The point is that they’re a propaganda outfit, dedicated to manipulating the news coming out of Iraq and spreading disinformation. The head of the operation isn’t a journalist; he’s a party insider and “strategist.” They’re running a PR show down there. It would be just as contemptible if it were a Democratic operation.

You complain about rjung’s choice of snippets, but in your own post, leave out the last line from the bit you quote:

“Is that a surprise? No. Would Democrats do it? Yes. *** But it’s particularly noxious because people’s lives are on the line.”***

What gives?

Jack:

Good point, but these aren’t military journalists, are they?

[RTFirefly]

@UncleBeer

But you’re ready to believe the rest of the story without additional substantiation, including a number of critical quotes printed without attribution. Seems it’s only the portions of the story that fit your preconceived notions that you’re willing to believe. How . . . partisan.

It becomes a hell of a lot more believable, Unc, if you actually go to the Coalition Provisional Authority site. It’s positively surreal. You’ve got to scroll way down on the front page to notice that anything more exciting is happening in Baghdad, Iraq, than in Birmingham, Alabama.

Their most recent Press Release is about the new logo for the Iraqi Olympic Team.

I’m assuming the CPA folks are not only pro-Bush, but besides that, they’ve gotta have access to some really great weed.

[Banquet_Bear]

…I was going to start a new thread, but this one looked as good as any other to post in…

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is in Iraq in the moment, and he had this to say about the Iraqi Hospital Services…

At the end of the visit, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said conditions would improve ``if they just washed their hands and cleaned the crap off the walls.’'

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/international.bg?articleid=980

…truly, truly pathetic. After all the Iraqi hospital services have had to put up with-from years of neglect to sanctions to looting to having to protect themselves with rifles, and this is what he has to say?

[vibrotronica]

@UncleBeer

Good snippets, rjung! Here’s another that somehow escaped you:

Ooooh. Here’s a better one:

And that “ethical red line” would be a lot more believable if the spokesman didn’t turn around and lie in the same damned sentence! $20 billion? Try $89 billion with no end in sight!

[elucidator]

Unc, I’m surprised at you! A truncated quote like that? You can’t really have thought you were gonna get away with that? Dude, what’s got into you?

[sailor]

Bagdhag Bob would be so proud.