Did you watch the video linked by 5que?
About half way through, there’s a scene actually showing the military folk in Iraq being prepped by a woman from the White House, telling them not only what to say, but when to pause!
Never ceases to amaze me. When Clinton is brought up for his past transgressions, we all get the “Oh there they go bringing up Clinton again!” bullshit. (I’ve just started taking the view his tenure must not have been significant enough to warrant reference)
One of the biggies in '92 was the left telling us service in the military wasn’t important to being President.
Now we hear that it is, in fact important. By the left. That goes into defense mode if you mention a President protested in Moscow and wrote a letter stating he “loathes the military.” But we can’t mention that, since it’s a quote attributable to He Who We May Never Mention. :rolleyes:
I think this administration has lost its edge. Too bad it didn’t happen a year ago.
Even the media couldn’t spin something that we could see unfold with our own eyes. All we had to do was watch and listen as the officers were prepped. It was embarrassing. It reminded me of those 1950’s black and white educational films with the hokey music and bad acting.
All of the men were officers. I don’t know about the woman.
The questions were set-ups designed to elicit a certain response. For example:
You would think that any officer assigned to Tikrit would be able to express an opinion on that when asked by the President of the United States. But not in this scripted scenario!! Instead, the soldier he was speaking to (Captain Kennedy) responded with this:
That happened over and over again.
He mentioned the “march of freedom” twice. I hate that metaphor more and more every time he uses it. It’s so damned militant.
Didn’t Eisenhower go to West Point? I know that he lived at Gettysburg just to study military strategy. Compare that with the profound military strategy of George Bush in this teleconference:
No wonder a positive response has to be scripted!
Bush lies to his officers near the end of his script:
Support for their well-being? Yes, they have that. But this country is no longer “standing strong” with the war in Iraq.
Ivylass, this is war propaganda designed to mislead and sway the opinion of citizens. Our President and our military officers should not put on an act. I think that is very important.
Although the Bush Administration and Mr. McClellan are dumbasses for choosing to cover up the fact that this was prepared, it would be insane not to do so.
Even if this teleconference were conducted by picking service members at random and asking them questions that they had no idea about, it would still have come off as a disaster because the ability to speak spontaneously about even a topic that you’re familiar with into a television camera is a skill that very few people have.
Basically, it would have been a bunch of, “Ummmm’s,” and, “you know’s,” instead of something vaguely coherent and scripted like it actually turned out.
There is simply no other way to conduct a teleconference with troops, although claiming that it wasn’t scripted or prepared for in anyway is absolutely idiotic. The Admin should have just said that of course the soldiers were made aware of the questions in advance but that they were free to respond in any way they liked (even if you cherry-picked people that you knew would give you positive responses).
We had Batman? 
Anyhoo, as the record shows, the officers could not be completely prepared: they had to face the big naught of a president asking questions out of turn.
As the people begin to finally realize the incompetence of this big Zero of a president, I do think this decade indeed will deserve to be called The Naughts.
Which brings us again to the question: Is nothing sacred?
Duffer
The reason Clinton is not brought up in these discussions is because he never played “pretend soldier” like Dubya Bush. As I said, he knows he has a captive, uncritical audience when he steps in front of the troops. Lord knows what they might be thinking of a dipshit who knew how to avoid a real war when he saw it. If I were stationed in Iraq, I would love to ask Dubya “Hey can your father get me transferred to the Texas National Guard?” Again that would be insubordination wouldn’t it?
Sounds like meaningless flagwaving and repetition of talking points to me. Iraq was invaded first because it was an alleged threat to national security; then it was about preventing terrorism. Occasionally someone pretends invading and occupying a people constitutes freeing them. I fail to see how an attack by Iraq’s goverment, a terrorist attack by private concerns or the oppression of the Iraqi people threatens the right to freedom of speech in the United States. I think Sgt. Long is talking from the bum.
I particularly like the old saw about how Iraq was illegally invaded and occupied in order to free its people. It dovetails well with the other talking point about fighting the terrorists over there so you don’t have to fight them on home turf. I can only conclude that the people of Iraq were freed so they would be available to hide behind.
As for not rehearsing but only being prepared for an upcoming performance, preparing for an upcoming performance is what rehearsing is.
Except that unless I am mistaken about what I saw in the video linked in this thread the lady was telling the soldiers what to say or at least how they should go about saying it.
What strikes me as alternately funny and disgusting about this whole chat thing is that the media is finally catching up to what The Daily Show has been showing for the last few years: how fake the administrations dealings with the media are.
Way to hop on the bandwagon there.
I liked the part where President Bush asked some Army captain, about the pre-election activities, “What’s your strategy?”
He’s a captain, dumbass, not a general. You’re the one who’s supposed to have a strategy.
And to think that a few years ago, a certain president did not use all three because he was all three.
It’s a pity that Bush cannot be subjected to the sort of questioning that some of our politicians have undergone. They still show that clip when Thatcher was stopped dead in her tracks by a woman asking some awkward questions about the sinking of the General Belgrano. In the run-up to the last election Blair was equally ambushed by a question about waiting times to see a doctor. You could see the panic and surprise in his face when a question came his way he wasn’t expecting.
and let us not forget that guy in NO who shouted “Fuck You” to DIck Cheany. Good times, good times.
ROFL. The White House is pushing her religious background, because there are no qualificatons, not much useful past history to go on, and no useful experience except as a crony.
As a reply to Duffer, all I want to do is echo what wolf_meister says. We are being “led” by a guy who is the self-proclaimed “war president”. The mighty war hero and great conqueror. Where was his courage and strong conviction way back when? I mentioned Kerry as Bush’s opposite - someone who did see war, and was opposed to wars of Political Expediency or wars of empire. The decent man vs. the hypocrite and coward. I don’t care about He Who Must Not Be Named (Clinton). Clinton isn’t in charge, is he? Bush is. Sure, Clinton has been accused of draft dodging, but then he didn’t come back and start wars, based on lies and deliberate disregard for “inconvenient intelligence”. He didn’t play superhero, dropping a plane onto a carrier deck and proclaiming “mission accomplished”. Bush did. Now, Bush got caught staging another “photo op”, using military personnel. And, even with the choreography, it was more like a collection of outtakes. They (the soldiers) had no choice but to participate, and I imagine that they believe whatever shit Bush tells them, because it’s all the “news” they get. That doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t smell the bullshit.
That will not happen here. It’s a damn shame. Bush can’t even function when the crowd is vetted and has taken a loyalty pledge. What would happen in a free for all? He can’t talk, he can’t think on his feet. “They” don’t dare let him talk to a true “townhall meeting”. He would get shredded. Look at his speeches, and the debates during the election. It’s all the same. Freedom. America. They hate us. Evil. Stay the course. WMD. Gawd. Newkewlar gewgaws. Iraq attacked us. Terra (terror). All empty phrases and slogans, with no substance or fact. The guy’s all hat, no cattle. All show, no go. All brass, no ass.
Unfortunately, we still have people who eat all the shit he can shovel, and they ask for more.
It works both ways, duffer. One of the biggies we got in '92 was the right telling us it was important to being President, that alleged drug use was important, and so on. Those things suddenly weren’t important when GWB was running and I found it disgusting.
However, I didn’t hold it against him. Meet a left-leaning voter who is consistent. I didn’t think it was important with Clinton and I didn’t think it was fair to deride Bush for the same things. I do consider it fair game to target the hypocrisy of both parties when they trumpet the importance of certain characteristics so loudly because their horse has them, but downplay them when he doesn’t.
I’ll admit it. I liked Bush 41. When he was VP and I didn’t know anything about him, he scared the crap out of me. Reagan was a cowboy with his finger not far from a nuclear trigger. If anything happened to him, we’d have a CIA guy acting as President! :eek: But even with all of the underhanded stuff Bush 41 did when he was elected I came to believe that having a president who was knowledgable in foreign relations, who knew war first-hand, and who was intelligent wasn’t such a bad thing. When Clinton came along I found myself wondering where the real president was. Clinton dodged the draft! How could we trust him? He bailed out of Somalia after we got our nose bloodied. (Reagan bailed out of Lebanon, but that’s not the point of this post.)
But after a while Clinton grew on me. Sure I looked at him like this: :dubious: after seeing Wag The Dog and then having the Lewinsky scandal come to light followed by his air strikes in Bosnia, but overall I think he was good for the country. He was intelligent and did a good job. And he also was in favour of the same liberal domestic policies I’m in favour of.
Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office, and not by his wife. Personally, I wouldn’t cheat; but that’s just me. I thought it was a bad thing for him to do, but I realise not everyone is as faithful as I am (or would be, if I had an SO). My reaction was, ‘I wouldn’t have done it. But so what? He got a blow job. In some places the populace just winks at a Head Of State’s peccadilloes.’ I was a little angry that he lied about it. I think he should have just admitted it. As I said, I don’t really care he got some extramarital play.
Did he smoke marijuana? ‘I didn’t inhale.’ Yeah, right. :rolleyes: Again, I don’t care. I’ve smoked marijuana. Just check my DoJ dossier. Didn’t stop me from getting clearances. No big deal.
Bush 43 was (is? I’ve forgotten the definition) an alcoholic. And apparently he was a coke fiend. Again, no big deal. I did some coke back in the early-'80s at the time I smoked some weed. Past drug use is a non-issue.
But when it comes to military service I become angry at Bush 43’s antics. Clinton did evade the draft. Bush 43 evaded the draft while giving the appearance that he was serving. Bush 43 joined the ANG, and then failed to report for training. He did not appear for at least one mandatory physical, which is required of civilian pilots as well as military ones. He worked on his daddy’s political campaigns instead of doing the job he was obligated to do.
And decades later he shows up touting his ‘military service’. He evaded the draft just as much as Clinton did, only he was more weasley about it. Clinton equivocated about how he ended up not serving. Bush 43 actively evaded his responsibilities after he’d already signed up for the job. He was a pretend soldier. He reminds me of I, Claudius where the Emporer was called ‘Little Boots’ when he was young because he marched around pretending to be a soldier. And he comes out saying how important the military is and how important it is for our servicemen and -women to do their duties, all the while pretending he didn’t shirk his own. He plays at being The Great Conquorer as if it’s all a game to him.
That’s the difference between Bush 43 and Clinton. Clinton never pretended to be a Great Warrior. And that’s also the difference (aside from native intelligence) between Bush 42 and John Kerry. Kerry did serve in the military. Kerry was shot at. Kerry was there. Bush is a chickenhawk.
Bush doesn’t like to hear bad news. (Who does?) From what I’ve heard the messengers fear his wrath. People are afraid to disagree with him. It reminds me of certain other 20th Century despots who would be very harsh with those who disagreed with them. So he is insulated. No one will tell him when he’s wrong. He won’t admit when he’s wrong. If he’s ‘never wrong’, then it becomes a feedback loop. Bush 43 is a gormless idiot.
Oddly, I recently listened to a talk on the failures of the KGB durring Brezhnev (sp?). One thing that the speaker kept pointing out is that people in the intelligence community were very afraid to tell Brezhnev anything was going wrong, so they’d just tell him what he wanted to hear. This caused a -lot- of downfalls, and the eventual crumble of the KGB as a top-flight organization. Having heard the way our nation’s intelligence community has acted over the past 4 years makes me have a serious sense of deja-vu.