Videos:
http://www.vortex.com/bv/coached.wmv
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/13.html#a5359
Audio of rehearsal directions:
OK… well, what I’m getting from this audio is that they went through the paces of the broadcast, who would ask what type of question, and what kind of question would be asked. This is pretty standard and not dishonest, at least not within broadcast norms. What I was looking for was coaching on what the answers should contain, emphasize, or support, and I’m not hearing that at all. So this does sound like a bit of a tempest in a teapot to me.
Propaganda. Pure and simple.
Does the President have some compelling need to seek the input of the foot soldier? One can only hope and pray he is better informed than that (though one has doubts…). So we can reasonably assume that the premise of “feedback” from the troops is bogus.
Everyone knows that the troops were carerfully vetted. No chance, none whatsoever, that a dissonant voice will be heard. You are free to assume that no such dissonant voices exist. That is your privilege.
So why did the President ask his questions? To bask in their reflected sympathy, to pour praise upon thier heads and stand close enough so that some might splash onto himself.
An America, we tend to think that propaganda by the State is something that happens elsewhere. We need to recongize that this is naive. This somewhat overblown scandal is a step in the right direction.
When the people lead, the leaders will follow. The power is ours, we have only to assert it. When propaganda no longer works, there will be very little of it.
I’m just observing this particular event and noting that nobody here was told what to say. If the audio or video clips showed that to be the case, then this would be very interesting. But this isn’t any more interesting than any other time any other politician has appeared in a “candid appearance” with “the people”.
Perhaps your “everybody” knows that every public utterance of any soldier in favor of Bush is a patent lie. But I have enough experience with the modern military and its culture to know that they overwhelmingly went for Bush in both elections, and it wouldn’t take strenuous hand-picking to find a few who would express heartfelt support for the leader, mission, and policies. This includes the poor and underprivileged ones as well. This is why I don’t go through the charade of “supporting the troops” and why this particular video is no big revelation.
Reminds me of an old gag:
Man 1: He’s not as dumb as he looks!
Man 2: He couldn’t be!
You’re not concerned that Barber’s questions were nearly identical to Bush’s questions, word-for-word? Nor that the White House was insisting that the entire event was unstaged?
In this case, what would really get me excited about dishonesty would be if Barber had said something like… “and when the President asks this question, here’s what we want you to say”. That would be the money shot, and it isn’t there. So what we have here is a basic dog-and-pony show, a time-worn staple of political theatre. Of course it isn’t particularly informative, authentic, or meaningful, but also not damning evidence of a conspiricy to broadcast soldiers saying things they didn’t really formulate or believe. But hey, if you’re needing to get your Bush hate on, yeah, this will do in a pinch.
The clip I saw showed a lady in a uniform telling the group when to say their lines. She specifically mentioned to the female sargeant, “after you talk about New York.” The same one who talked to the President about meeting him in New York.
What was the point of this interview anyway? Probably because the White House couldn’t get away with hiring actors to do play your typical GI.
You seem to be saying, at one and the same time, that Bush surrounds himself both with smart people who tell him what to do and with yes men who tell him what he wants to hear. I know that isn’t directly contradictory, but it sounds mixed up to me.
You are making an assumption that Bush is as simple as his public persona suggests. We all agree his public persona is manufactured. The one thing we do know is he managed to become POTUS. The default assumption has got to be that it takes brains or at least some sort of pretty sharp rat cunning to do that. If you are going to argue to the contrary, the onus is on you to prove your position. But given that Bush is very careful always to wear his “good ole boy, jus’ one of you regular folks” face at all times when in public, you might find that proof hard to come by.
I have no respect for the man.
But, I mean, FUCK how do you mumble and stumble through a prepared speech you have right the fuck in front of you?
How do you come across like a total idiot when you have the questions and answers in front of you?
Unbelievable.
-Joe
And, unfortunately for you and me, it still works.
It would be impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the average American.
“It’s taking longer than we thought.”
Maybe the rumors about him drinking again are true? Hell, look at how he fumbled with that earplug – could he really be that klutzy sober? I dunno what if any truth there might be to such allegations, but damn, that performance makes a person wonder.
There’s a huge difference between saying, “Sergeant, you speak about New York; Captain, you speak about Iraq” and "The lines were scripted.
Are y’all trying to prove your ignorance or is it your prejudice?
p.s. I don’t particularly like Bush, btw.
No, there is NOT a huge difference between telling people what to say and scripting it. There’s not even a LITTLE difference.
Are you just in love with a jerkish response to make or did you not notice that they weren’t told what to say, but rather who would be the so-called expert to handle the question?
That was jerkish? Pointing out the fact that they were told what to say when you insist they weren’t is jerkish? Damn, glad I didn’t call you a whack-job reactionist with a hair-trigger temper and a Mormon persecution complex like I was thinking.
Not necessarily. He surrounds himself with people who are both smart and share the same worldview. He hears what he wants to hear because he’s being told it by people who want to say it, are smart enough to think of a rationalization for it, and can explain it articulately. Geenral intelligence is not incompatible with a capacity for self-delusion.
Or an ability and willingness to be manipulated by cunning rats.
Your last posting proves that you are certainly a jerk. I made my posting in response to yours which misrepresented what I posted. I clearly stated that there’s a difference between telling someone what to say and telling someone who it is to say something. Maybe in your vacuum of a skull, there’s no difference; however, for those of us connected with reality, there is.
There’s nothing wrong with my temper. It’s just too bad you don’t like getting called out on an asinine comment you post for the world to see.
Finally, “Mormon persecution complex?” What a consummate jackass you are!
My last posting above is directed to Biggirl.