[Nicko]

Do people really fall for this stuff? Or are they that stupid?


-------------------
Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 8 minutes ago

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.
ADVERTISEMENT

"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 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?"

"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 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 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, 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."

[smacintush]

All politicians do this crap. Sad but true.

Welcome to the real world.

[Y3a]

No different than Clinton on the beach at Normandy. or at Ron Browns Funeral.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by smacintush

All politicians do this crap. Sad but true.

Welcome to the real world.

I agree to some extent but I think this White House goes to extremes (though I wouldn't use this situation as an example) to stage events.

[mojo2]

Nicko, are you only now becoming aware of such things? And do they surprise you? What was your impression of Steve Jobs when he announced the Nano? Would you be surprised to know that was orchestrated and rehearsed, too? Have you ever had occasion to practice what you were going to say to your date for the evening? Is it alright for your favorite actors or musicians to rehearse?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I agree to some extent but I think this White House goes to extremes (though I wouldn't use this situation as an example) to stage events.

Do you mean to say that you think this White House enjoys sufficient popularity such that GWB shouldn't need to stage any events?

Do you mean to say that the President is such a naturally gifted speaker and charismatic presence that the extent of the preparations are superfluous?

Are you saying that the Americans who look at the nightly news (and don't follow the news as closely as you or i) and who not only WANT but EXPECT some visual indication, some graphic shorthand that tells them how the president spends his day, that those folks aren't important enough for this White House to expend the time and energies necessary to communicate with them?

Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advises) "step down?"

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you mean to say that you think this White House enjoys sufficient popularity such that GWB shouldn't need to stage any events?

Do you mean to say that the President is such a naturally gifted speaker and charismatic presence that the extent of the preparations are superfluous?

Are you saying that the Americans who look at the nightly news (and don't follow the news as closely as you or i) and who not only WANT but EXPECT some visual indication, some graphic shorthand that tells them how the president spends his day, that those folks aren't important enough for this White House to expend the time and energies necessary to communicate with them?

Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advises) "step down?"

Not my place to answer for him, but seems the only thing he said, which has nothing to do with your questions, was that the current administration goes to greater lengths than previous ones in their attempt to do PR, etc. I'm not sure how you got: "Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advices) 'step down?'"

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you mean to say that you think this White House enjoys sufficient popularity such that GWB shouldn't need to stage any events?

Do you mean to say that the President is such a naturally gifted speaker and charismatic presence that the extent of the preparations are superfluous?

Are you saying that the Americans who look at the nightly news (and don't follow the news as closely as you or i) and who not only WANT but EXPECT some visual indication, some graphic shorthand that tells them how the president spends his day, that those folks aren't important enough for this White House to expend the time and energies necessary to communicate with them?

Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advises) "step down?"

I think he is saying that the Bush II Administration uses the scripted nature of media events much more than normal, or what is presumed to be normal.

Basically, this President never willingly speaks off message. He never speaks in an ad-hoc, unscripted setting.

For me, a high level of control of one's image is to be expected from the President. What shocks me with President Bush is that his image is always being controlled. The American public never gets to see him in a spontaneous moment.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Do you mean to say that you think this White House enjoys sufficient popularity such that GWB shouldn't need to stage any events?

Do you mean to say that the President is such a naturally gifted speaker and charismatic presence that the extent of the preparations are superfluous?

No baby, just the opposite. That the President and his staff fill his events only with those people who agree with his every utterance. [You must get a lot of invites.] It's almost as if he has a complete aversion of acknowledging that people have opposing views to his.

Are you saying that the Americans who look at the nightly news (and don't follow the news as closely as you or i) and who not only WANT but EXPECT some visual indication, some graphic shorthand that tells them how the president spends his day, that those folks aren't important enough for this White House to expend the time and energies necessary to communicate with them?

No, I'm saying what I said. That this WH goes to further extremes than most to fill the President's audience with loyalist who'll answer as expected or ask softball questions. How you got from there to what you wrote above is beyond me.

Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advises) "step down?"

No, I said what I said, nothing more. This is interesting though as it shows you like to make suppositions and assumptions about people and read a lot more into things than are really there. I'll certainly have to take that into consideration when I read your future posts.

[OldManMac]

Bush may have to learn to speak extemporaneously soon, after Karl Rove is indicted, and hoepfully imprisoned.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I think he is saying that the Bush II Administration uses the scripted nature of media events much more than normal, or what is presumed to be normal.

Basically, this President never willingly speaks off message. He never speaks in an ad-hoc, unscripted setting.

For me, a high level of control of one's image is to be expected from the President. What shocks me with President Bush is that his image is always being controlled. The American public never gets to see him in a spontaneous moment.

Exactly.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

Not my place to answer for him, but seems the only thing he said, which has nothing to do with your questions, was that the current administration goes to greater lengths than previous ones in their attempt to do PR, etc. I'm not sure how you got: "Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advices) 'step down?'"

You'll have to read our other conversation from yesterday about the al Queda letter where I noted that his replies were becoming much more garbled than usual and I believed a level of dimentia had set in.

[Maflynn]

I say stop the photo ops and start leading.

I mean shortly after Rita, he recommends that Americans conserve fuel and not drive a lot. Shortly after that he hops on Airforce one to go to New Orleans for a photo op - where's leading by example.

Our solders are stuck in a quagmire of a conflict with no end in sight, we have louisiana, missippi and Texas devestated because of hurricanes, inflation is the highest in 25 years and home heating could rise 70% I don't need a speech or some sound bite, I need a president (and a congress) to act.

Mike

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

Not my place to answer for him, but seems the only thing he said, which has nothing to do with your questions, was that the current administration goes to greater lengths than previous ones in their attempt to do PR, etc. I'm not sure how you got: "Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advices) 'step down?'"

Just was trying to think of all the possible things he might have been trying to say.

So, exactly what do YOU ( ) mean when you say, "the current administration goes to greater lengths than previous ones in their attempt to do PR...?"

The "step down" comment comes from the fact that I know from another thread that he doesn't support the president's overall performance. And added to that, I've been listening to the song quite a bit recently and like it and figured I'd throw it into a post to see what someone might say.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I think he is saying that the Bush II Administration uses the scripted nature of media events much more than normal, or what is presumed to be normal.

Basically, this President never willingly speaks off message. He never speaks in an ad-hoc, unscripted setting.

For me, a high level of control of one's image is to be expected from the President. What shocks me with President Bush is that his image is always being controlled. The American public never gets to see him in a spontaneous moment.

I'm sure most of us here would recognize that when we're around people who like us and expect us to do well, we do. And when we're around people who don't like us and don't expect us to do well, we don't do well.

With every mis-spoken word the president said being harped on and criticized in the press and all, he has taken steps to try to eliminate the gaffes and ill-chosen words.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Fool him once shame on him, no...shame on you. Fool him twice...shame on...you won't get fooled again.

There are calendars and websites making money from his mistakes. He wanted the office of the President to be above that stuff.

I wish he were able to tell the press and his critics to sit on it, but he is the President.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

No baby, just the opposite. That the President and his staff fill his events only with those people who agree with his every utterance. [You must get a lot of invites.] It's almost as if he has a complete aversion of acknowledging that people have opposing views to his.

You've seen what happens here when stalwart and steadfast conservatives meet up with passionate progressives? Reagan seldom entertained those with opposing views. If I can get the jist of what an opposing viewpoint is without the emotional appeal, then maybe. But where the opposition has the luxury of being emotional, the president has to make decisions on reason and his own emotions often have to take a back seat.

No, I'm saying what I said. That this WH goes to further extremes than most to fill the President's audience with loyalist who'll answer as expected or ask softball questions. How you got from there to what you wrote above is beyond me.

HAHAHA! Because I didn't read ^this^ description or these words anywhere before this post. I guess I should have read more closely. The practice went on even before this administration.

No, I said what I said, nothing more. This is interesting though as it shows you like to make suppositions and assumptions about people and read a lot more into things than are really there. I'll certainly have to take that into consideration when I read your future posts.

Not really. I think a scholarly ( ) study of my posting techniques and gambits would show all kinds of stuff, but I doubt you'd find me mis-reading people or situations or facts. Actually, I think you'd be surprised at how insightful I am. What I was doing with you was listing some of the POSSIBLE things you might have been trying to say as I hadn't seen anything that would provide a clearer picture. You can't say I don't go the extra mile to engage you and get to the truth.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Bush may have to learn to speak extemporaneously soon, after Karl Rove is indicted, and hoepfully imprisoned.

Karen Hughes may be called upon again!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

You'll have to read our other conversation from yesterday about the al Queda letter where I noted that his replies were becoming much more garbled than usual and I believed a level of dimentia had set in.

Little secret.

As I have been accused of bashing Muslims and being a rabid right winger, I have spent some time reading about Islam and as we're currently in the period of Ramadan, where fasting and praying is the primary focus, I decided to try it. It really is something you guys should try, at least for 24 hours as I did. No eating or drinking during daylight and only a small meal and drink between sundown and sunrise. I went 30 hours without sleeping. You definitely gain a different perspective.

That's what I was referring to yesterday, Doofy.

Ok. Now, we won't speak of this again because I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or draw attention to myself or anything. And if you ask me why I mention it at all, and I debated not mentioning it. But I see how you are when people keep certain things from you. You make up little stories to explain things you notice but they gain a life of their own after awhile.

So, thank you for understanding.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I say stop the photo ops and start leading.

I mean shortly after Rita, he recommends that Americans conserve fuel and not drive a lot. Shortly after that he hops on Airforce one to go to New Orleans for a photo op - where's leading by example.

Our solders are stuck in a quagmire of a conflict with no end in sight, we have louisiana, missippi and Texas devestated because of hurricanes, inflation is the highest in 25 years and home heating could rise 70% I don't need a speech or some sound bite, I need a president (and a congress) to act.

Mike

Mike, you have to let your boss know the projects you are working on and give him/her progress reports and to show up in their office every once in a while just so they can actually SEE you. Right?

Well, we are his boss and he's letting us know he's on the job. You can believe if he didn't HAVE to do this he wouldn't. But then the other critics would rag him for NOT doing the photo ops. LOLOL Damed Do/Don't

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Karen Hughes may be called upon again!

Good one!

I can only hope!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Mike, you have to let your boss know the projects you are working on and give him/her progress reports and to show up in their office every once in a while just so they can actually SEE you. Right?

Well, we are his boss and he's letting us know he's on the job. You can believe if he didn't HAVE to do this he wouldn't. But then the other critics would rag him for NOT doing the photo ops. LOLOL Damed Do/Don't

Yes, I have to let my boss know what I'm doing. But I don't enlist the help of our intern to go along with what I'm saying, I tell it like it is.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Little secret.

As I have been accused of bashing Muslims and being a rabid right winger, I have spent some time reading about Islam and as we're currently in the period of Ramadan, where fasting and praying is the primary focus, I decided to try it. It really is something you guys should try, at least for 24 hours as I did. No eating or drinking during daylight and only a small meal and drink between sundown and sunrise. I went 30 hours without sleeping. You definitely gain a different perspective.

That's what I was referring to yesterday, Doofy.

Ok. Now, we won't speak of this again because I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it or draw attention to myself or anything. And if you ask me why I mention it at all, and I debated not mentioning it. But I see how you are when people keep certain things from you. You make up little stories to explain things you notice but they gain a life of their own after awhile.

So, thank you for understanding.

Um, I'm not doofy.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

HAHAHA! Because I didn't read ^this^ description or these words anywhere before this post. I guess I should have read more closely.

Interestingly you were the only one who "didn't read" that in my reply.

The practice went on even before this administration.

Which I acknowledged.

Actually, I think you'd be surprised at how insightful I am.

I would be surprised. When do you plan on exhibiting this talent?

What I was doing with you was listing some of the POSSIBLE things you might have been trying to say as I hadn't seen anything that would provide a clearer picture. You can't say I don't go the extra mile to engage you and get to the truth.

As I said above you seem to be the only one who didn't understand my point of view. Would this be a display of that insightfulness you were referring to? Onward and upward Mojo.

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Mike, you have to let your boss know the projects you are working on and give him/her progress reports and to show up in their office every once in a while just so they can actually SEE you. Right?

Yes, but I don't fly to New Oleans to talk about New Orleans and I report on my progress which can be loosely translated work Why does he come out with the useless sound bites of relying less on foreign oil but has not done one thing to help us reduce our dependancy.

Why does he tell us not to drive when he does not do anyhting. I have to commute (drive 40 miles) and its very expensive

I'm looking for true action and leadership and he's only given us sound bites and photo ops.

finally a photo op is not a status report or letting us know he's workong on the problem. He's mugging for the camera.

since you brought up business, I'll use that as an example. Why not provide a plan of action with metrics and measuable goals to show that he has reach the acheavment and go on TV or a news conference to report on his status. I bet that will beat out hugging the poor souls telling them he's there for them and does nothing.

Mike

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Nicko, are you only now becoming aware of such things? And do they surprise you? What was your impression of Steve Jobs when he announced the Nano? Would you be surprised to know that was orchestrated and rehearsed, too? Have you ever had occasion to practice what you were going to say to your date for the evening? Is it alright for your favorite actors or musicians to rehearse?

When President Bush introduces the iPod Nano this is acceptable behavior.

When President Bush is lying to our soldiers this is not acceptable behavior.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Um, I'm not doofy.

Um, I know. And YOU know that there's more than just you and I here, right?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Interestingly you were the only one who "didn't read" that in my reply.



Which I acknowledged.



I would be surprised. When do you plan on exhibiting this talent?



As I said above you seem to be the only one who didn't understand my point of view. Would this be a display of that insightfulness you were referring to? Onward and upward Mojo.

30 hours without sleep and no food or water? You know, sometimes we learn things about ourselves and we are able to notice things about others.

Here, we notice up-close, but on a much smaller scale, why the president no longer speaks extemporaneously. Everyone in the press might gather round him like a pack of hyena.

I feel like a wounded zebra or something. LOLOL!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Yes, I have to let my boss know what I'm doing. But I don't enlist the help of our intern to go along with what I'm saying, I tell it like it is.

Well, I'm sure he wishes he had your ease of intellectual communication.


(NOTE TO SELF: Be sure to bookmark any indications of other presidents who staged events/photo ops.)

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Well, I'm sure he wishes he had your ease of intellectual communication.


(NOTE TO SELF: Be sure to bookmark any indications of other presidents who staged events/photo ops.)

My ease of intellectual communication? As if it's more difficult to get in front of a camera and tell people what's going on than it is to orchestrate a pageant to illustrate it?

I'm not saying Bush is unique in doing this, I'm saying that I disapprove of it (regardless of who's doing it). I want the plain, honest truth from my elected officials. I don't want them blowing smoke up my ass and staging performances to get their message across. Even if what he's saying is completely accurate the way he presents it makes it seem less trustworthy.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

Yes, but I don't fly to New Oleans to talk about New Orleans and I report on my progress which can be loosely translated work Why does he come out with the useless sound bites of relying less on foreign oil but has not done one thing to help us reduce our dependancy.

Why does he tell us not to drive when he does not do anyhting. I have to commute (drive 40 miles) and its very expensive

I'm looking for true action and leadership and he's only given us sound bites and photo ops.

finally a photo op is not a status report or letting us know he's workong on the problem. He's mugging for the camera.

since you brought up business, I'll use that as an example. Why not provide a plan of action with metrics and measuable goals to show that he has reach the acheavment and go on TV or a news conference to report on his status. I bet that will beat out hugging the poor souls telling them he's there for them and does nothing.

Mike

We all recognize the president's shortcomings. Not speaking to you, specifically, Mike, but how much pleasure or results can any of us get by beating the same horse over and over, again and again?

I've stated at least twice here, my frustration with the President and his administration and the people who are serving him. I wish they all were able to do a better job than they are. But they can only do what they can do.

There have been people who have done so much and done it with such flair that their shortcomings weren't noticed or were excused. Then there are others who had such a talented support staff and PR machine that maybe they didn't do as much or do it as well, but they were able to make people just FEEL GOOD.

I believe the President's accomplishments are impressive but there is no one sending out that message to the world. (i.e. us and everyone) But I don't feel his accomplishments are so many and so dazzling that they can blind us to the weaknesses of his administration.

Not to minimize nor negate your comments but when you consider the cost of gasoline have you seriously recognized GWB role in making sure you would have gasoline at all?

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0406020835.asp

By attacking energy sources al Qaeda is hitting two targets. First, they are attempting to damage our economy. Osama bin Laden stated in December 2001 that incapacitating the U.S. economy should be the primary objective for al Qaeda fighters, and disrupting the oil market is a form of flank attack. This is not to say that they might not also target the homeland — note the recent threat alert directed to U.S. oil and natural-gas terminals, processing facilities, and pipelines. However, attacks on the global energy infrastructure are likely to have more lasting effects on the economy than dramatic 9/11-style operations, and are easier to pull off. The physical damage they can inflict is less important than the fear they can promote in the marketplace — which leads to higher prices without keeping a single barrel of oil off the market. Furthermore, they not only hope to send our economy into recession (though no sign of a slowdown yet) but create a crisis of confidence in the political leadership.

If I had my way, everybody in the world might have the same comments they now do about every OTHER aspect of his administration, but by gosh and by golly, we'd all be saying, "Yes, he made sure the oil didn't go dry or to $200/bbl!"

You say mugging before the cameras isn't an indication that he's working? Well, it kinda is, don't you think? Showing up is half the battle. And besides, much of effective leadership is appearances.

Finally, he's not THAT kind of leader. I think you are thinking of Ross Perot with the flip charts or Al Gore with his visual aids.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

When President Bush introduces the iPod Nano this is acceptable behavior.

When President Bush is lying to our soldiers this is not acceptable behavior.

And the supposed lie in your opinion would be...???

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

My ease of intellectual communication? As if it's more difficult to get in front of a camera and tell people what's going on than it is to orchestrate a pageant to illustrate it?

I'm not saying Bush is unique in doing this, I'm saying that I disapprove of it (regardless of who's doing it). I want the plain, honest truth from my elected officials. I don't want them blowing smoke up my ass and staging performances to get their message across. Even if what he's saying is completely accurate the way he presents it makes it seem less trustworthy.

I have to say you have a good point. I wish our leaders could be completely candid and open and honest and genuine and unscripted and etc. But we settle for the best we can get every four years and hope the guy (gal?) we pick leaves the place in decent shape for the next tenant.

[mojo2]

RIRedinPA
Veteran Member


Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 304
Status: Offline
report abuse
Today, 07:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo2
Do you mean to say that you think this White House enjoys sufficient popularity such that GWB shouldn't need to stage any events?

Do you mean to say that the President is such a naturally gifted speaker and charismatic presence that the extent of the preparations are superfluous?


No baby, just the opposite. That the President and his staff fill his events only with those people who agree with his every utterance. [You must get a lot of invites.] It's almost as if he has a complete aversion of acknowledging that people have opposing views to his.

Quote:
Are you saying that the Americans who look at the nightly news (and don't follow the news as closely as you or i) and who not only WANT but EXPECT some visual indication, some graphic shorthand that tells them how the president spends his day, that those folks aren't important enough for this White House to expend the time and energies necessary to communicate with them?


No, I'm saying what I said. That this WH goes to further extremes than most to fill the President's audience with loyalist who'll answer as expected or ask softball questions. How you got from there to what you wrote above is beyond me.

Quote:
Or, are you saying, that because you disapprove of his performance that he should just (as the song, Megalomaniac, advises) "step down?"


No, I said what I said, nothing more. This is interesting though as it shows you like to make suppositions and assumptions about people and read a lot more into things than are really there. I'll certainly have to take that into consideration when I read your future posts.

When I made the statement I hadn't read what you had said previously, I was being gracious. Then you responded by saying everyone else read it. And that made me wonder. Even in a sleep deprived and weakened state, how I could have missed your giving a clear unambiguous statement?

So I just finished a post and went back to check.

For the record, your clear explanation only comes AFTER I used the ploys I did to solicit a more precise statement from you.

You are trying to play dirty pool with mojo2?

That, is not nice.

[andi*pandi]

Ricardo Montalban.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

But we settle for the best we can get every four years and hope the guy (gal?) we pick leaves the place in decent shape for the next tenant.

No we don't. We get crappy professional politicians that are controlled by special interest groups, who are then elected by a tiny portion of the population.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mojo2

And the supposed lie in your opinion would be...???

Probably along the lines that he is misleading impressionable troops on the nature of the event...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by goMac

Probably along the lines that he is misleading impressionable troops on the nature of the event...

I don't think it's the troops we should be worrying about in this case. They know far better than even the president how things are going in Iraq. This wasn't a ploy (if it was indeed a ploy) to pull the wool over the eyes of the soldiers. The soldiers, most of them were actually officers, were complicit in this act which would have been a ploy to fool the American people.

[Rolling Bones]

It was sad how Bush blubbered his way through it. Half the time or maybe all of the time he seemed to be totally confused.

AND IT WAS REHEARSED FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!!

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I don't think it's the troops we should be worrying about in this case. They know far better than even the president how things are going in Iraq. This wasn't a ploy (if it was indeed a ploy) to pull the wool over the eyes of the soldiers. The soldiers, most of them were actually officers, were complicit in this act which would have been a ploy to fool the American people.

Short of committing a crime or allowing a crime to be committed or not reporting a crime after the fact, a military officer is sworn to obey his superiors. There's no real sense of complicity at work here, I don't think. After all, W is THE Commander in Chief.

In effect, W is the Chairman of the Board and the officers are project managers.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by goMac

Probably along the lines that he is misleading impressionable troops on the nature of the event...

Hmmmm...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Short of committing a crime or allowing a crime to be committed or not reporting a crime after the fact, a military officer is sworn to obey his superiors. There's no real sense of complicity at work here, I don't think. After all, W is THE Commander in Chief.

In effect, W is the Chairman of the Board and the officers are project managers.

Well right. But my point was that there was no element of this that was intended to mislead our soldiers in Iraq. If anyone was being misled it was the voting public.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

No we don't. We get crappy professional politicians that are controlled by special interest groups, who are then elected by a tiny portion of the population.

Hahaha!!!

You are emphasizing the word...

Originally Posted by mojo2
But we settle for the best we can get every four years and hope the guy (gal?) we pick leaves the place in decent shape for the next tenant.

Where I'm focused on the word...

Originally Posted by mojo2
But we settle for the best we can get every four years and hope the guy (gal?) we pick leaves the place in decent shape for the next tenant.

[spacefreak]

[vmarks]

http://278medic.blogspot.com/2005/10...dent-bush.html

Yesterday, I (bottom right corner in the picture) was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID's Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, "A Staged Event."
First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President.
We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it's the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!
The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, "So...What's REALLY going on over there?" Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It's like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it's not.

Tomorrow morning, the Iraqi people will vote on their constitution. The success of our mission or the mission of the Iraqi security forces is not defined by the outcome of that vote. If the people of Iraq vote this constitution down, that only means that the FREE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS is at work in Iraq. They are learning to voice their opinions in the polling stations, not through violence. If it is voted down, they will have the chance to draft an even better version; One that may better serve the people of Iraq. This is up to them. It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise. I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January's elections to this referendum. Don't tell me what the Iraqi people can or can't do. They will tell you with their VOTES!