Ah Monty, Monty, Monty. Here I am trying to save you from being a liar and that’s the thanks I get.
Next time, when you call me a jerk for absolutely no reason whatsoever, I will let your stupidity stand instead of helping you out with an example of what jerkishness actually is. Nice to see that hair-trigger temper of yours pulled taunt as a bowstring, though.
He surrounds himself with both types of people. Don’t get me wrong: Bush is a decision-maker (unfortunately), but his image is primarily marketed by his entourage. Rove et. al are responsible for convincing the American public that Bush the Emperor is wearing clothes. There’s nothing about Bush that tells me he could have pulled that off himself. I see no evidence that he has the intellectual cunning.
Not when you have some huge factors in your favor from birth. I’d agree with you if Bush rose from lower middle class obscurity to become what he is today. But you can’t deny that being the son of a former head of the CIA and President and a oil tycoon helped him tremendously. Plus, having some friends that really really want to see you at the top–and are willing to do some dirt to see that you get there–doesn’t hurt. Bush was born into a set of circumstances that allowed him to become president relatively easily. I can’t credit that to any exceptional amount of brilliance on his part.
It is a far bigger assumption to say that Bush is smart when he has a established record of acting in ways that suggest otherwise.
I think it’s harder to come by proof that Bush is super intelligent, frankly. Given that he sent us into war with Iraq and had the audacity to say that the resulting insurgency was unforseen is proof enough to me that he is lacking something in the mind department. Can you name one thing that he has done or said that is a testiment to genius he has?
Actually, I’m calling you a liar. But perhaps I’m mistaken and you’re just absolutely stupid.
Perhaps it’s both: You lie and you’re stupid.
Look, jerk:
I said there’s a difference between:
a) telling someone what to say
&
b) telling someone that they’re the one to respond to a particular question, but not telling them what to say.
You brought in my religion for no reason whatsoever, other than that you are a jackass.
Were they told what to say, no. But they were chosen to speak solely because of their willingness to heap praise on their Dear Leader. Attempting to pass this off as a legitimate Q&A session with the average soldier is dishonest, to say the least.
I’m not sure how Monty is lying here. He certainly disagrees with you, but I don’t see any evidence of him lying.
FTR, I disagree with Monty. I watch the practice Q&A session with the Deputy Secretary and infer from that even if the soldiers were not given canned responses, what they were going to say had already been worked out. To boil that down to soundbite length: The event was scripted.
As I’ve stated many times before, everytime Dubya appears before the military, (and that is extremely often[sup]1[/sup]), it is a contrived event. He has a captive audience in the sense that they are obligated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to show the Commander In Chief the utmost respect. That would explain the absence of anyone on the aircraft carrier giving him “the finger” or yelling obscenities.
What would be a very interesting interview would be Dubya meeting with military personnel who served in Iraq but are now civilians. 
[sup]1[/sup] The only time he didn’t appear frequently with the military was in the Texas National Guard.
I brought your religion into because I was purposely being a jerk. I thought I made that clear. I know, I know sometimes people need things spelled out and explained a few times to them. Especially when they start frothing at the mouth.
Also, I think everyone needs to see this again:
This is in response to the fact that the White House shill actually told one of the soldiers not only what to say but when to say it. There’s a difference between telling somebody what to say and when to say it and telling them what to say and when to say it. In MontyWorld. Kinda like WallyWorld-- there are rides there but no one to operate them.
I’m sorry, I’m still a little confused here.
Was the soldier a) told what to say or b) given a topic to speak on?
The shill told the female soldier “. . .and then, after he says that, you say the thing about New York.”
So . . . given a topic, then?
Let’s keep in mind that this was not a random sampling of soldiers whose attitudes and opinions were unknown. They were selected specifically because they were known to be loyal ass-kissers. A couple of them were PR flaks for the miltary, another was an enthusiastic blogger of Bush porn. Part of the staging lies in the casting. They picked people who they already knew would play ball. They rehearsed the questions to make sure their answers were properly sycophantic and they choreographed the event accordingly. It may not have been literally scripted in that the soldiers may not have been fed specific lines, but they were vetted to consist only of suckups.
The female soldier was actually a female reporter; see upthread for links.
I tend to agree with Jon Stewart’s observation on last night’s Daily Show. Given the ineptitude of the President in asking the pre-scripted questions, perhaps he’s the one they should have spent more time coaching.
The bolded text tends to suggest that the [alleged] shill knew what “the thing about New York” would be, rather than an instruction to simply say something on the topic of New York. Could be a matter of interpretation. If it is, I suspect that the former interpretation is the one Biggirl favors.
I think that’d depend on whether or not said civvie had signed a loyalty oath before attending one of George’s “town hall” “events.”
Of course it would be. Thanks, kd99, I had missed that.
“The thing about New York that you told us you wanted to say.”
“The thing about New York that we talked about earlier.”
“The thing about New York that we talked about earlier nudge nudge.”
Ok, I can see all of those as possiblities. Don’t see why any of them is definitive, though.
I couldn’t imagine interpreting it any other way.
Do you think they would have told him to go ahead with any story which had not already been vetted as being favorable to Bush?
After further thought, I actually agree with how the Bush people handled this one. If they are going to have an event staged like this one was, just leak video of the staging process so that we can see exactly how it is done. That’s full disclosure, more or less.
What was that thing, again? Oh, right:
“We began our fight against terrorism in the wake of 9/11, and we’re proud to continue it here in North central New York, uh, North central Iraq.”
I guess you could it makes sense that “The Iraqi occupation is a logical extension of our response to the 9/11 attacks,” is something that U.S. military PR staffer “wanted to say,” – it’s kind of like how professional sex workers want fat hairy mouthbreathers to come all over their faces.