View Full Version : Troops coached in Bush's teleconference
k4kyv
10-14-2005, 01:47 AM
What was billed as a conversation between President Bush and U.S. soldiers turns out to have been choreographed to match the president's goals for the war in Iraq.
To launch the video, you must use Internet Explorer. Other browsers will not work.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9686462/
W8EFA
10-14-2005, 03:35 AM
Absolutely pathetic. #Bush just loves to lie and manipulate U.S. Citizens. #This has been all over the major news tonight. #I think the broadcasters are incredulous that Bush would stoop this low.
Yet another example of the White House's attempts to avoid scrutiny, undermine the free and independent media, and use fake news and propaganda to manipulate public opinion.
Remember Jeff Gannon who was a fake reporter that would ask leading questions supporting Bush. Remember the education "editorials" from the guy that was found to be being paid and the Bush admin was admonished by the GSA.
This just continues the pattern of lies and corruption.
Gee, wonder if it was produced by the same crew that brought you Dan Rather and fake National Guard documents.
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 04:28 AM
I think it's time we all wise up to Bush and companies antics. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE IS IT?
k4kyv
10-14-2005, 04:47 AM
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Oct. 13 2005,20:48)]Gee, wonder if it was produced by the same crew that brought you Dan Rather and fake National Guard documents.
Now just who do you suppose might have produced the document that was "leaked" to Rather?
That was a set up to embarrass the news media. Rather & Co. were just careless and swallowed the bait. Any novice user of MS Word should have caught that superscript error right away.
BTW it is very easy to turn off the superscript function in Word and make it print 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. in the normal manner. There is a dialogue box you can open and all you have to do is X in your choice. The default function uses the superscript. I suspect the "error" was deliberate.
I doubt that Rather would have been so stupid as to attempt to fake a document and then report on it in his news show.
KE7DFP
10-14-2005, 05:11 AM
The reporters do this on a regular basis, it's standard industry working procedure, and every President's done it. Should we discuss Roosevelts' media staging? Nobody would care one iota about this if it was anyone else but Bush. Big Deal. This is nothing.
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 05:18 AM
Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ Oct. 13 2005,22:11)]The reporters do this on a regular basis, it's standard industry working procedure, and every President's done it. #Should #we discuss Roosevelts' media staging? #Nobody would care one iota about this if it was anyone else but Bush. Big Deal. #This is nothing.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES! IT'S A DISGRACE. THIS IS FASCISM. WAKE UP!
w7lpn
10-14-2005, 03:42 PM
Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ Oct. 13 2005,22:11)]The reporters do this on a regular basis, it's standard industry working procedure, and every President's done it. #Should #we discuss Roosevelts' media staging? #Nobody would care one iota about this if it was anyone else but Bush. Big Deal. #This is nothing.
Absolutely true! The anti-Bush crowd love the drama and the idea that Bush is doing something new and terrible that's never been done before.Ha! #What a bunch of spoiled little whiners. #"Wah! #I'm gonna take my ball and go home if you don't play by my rules." Pure liberal one-sided "We've been cheated" mentality. If Clinton had had the balls to go after Al-Queda in a real way, they'd all be waving the flag and saying the GOP are a bunch of cowards for not going in.
wa4brl
10-14-2005, 03:52 PM
BBC: Love the new avatar! If only we had such choices available. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
KA8NCR
10-14-2005, 03:55 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7eke @ Oct. 14 2005,08:42)]Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ Oct. 13 2005,22:11)]The reporters do this on a regular basis, it's standard industry working procedure, and every President's done it. Should we discuss Roosevelts' media staging? Nobody would care one iota about this if it was anyone else but Bush. Big Deal. This is nothing.
Absolutely true! The anti-Bush crowd love the drama and the idea that Bush is doing something new and terrible that's never been done before.Ha! What a bunch of spoiled little whiners. "Wah! I'm gonna take my ball and go home if you don't play by my rules." Pure liberal one-sided "We've been cheated" mentality. If Clinton had had the balls to go after Al-Queda in a real way, they'd all be waving the flag and saying the GOP are a bunch of cowards for not going in.
Is this the best you can offer in defense of your man? Is it not obvious the man is not quick enough on his feet to even manage a simple session with a handful of troops? Is he that incapable that he can't read from note cards like every other business executive in the country?
The point I think you're missing is that this preparation and scripting uncovers the fact that this wasn't about the troops, it wasn't about the war, it wasn't about anything but a propaganda session to make Bush look like something he isn't or make the situation appear to be something other than reality. THAT is why people are upset, and THAT is why there's the big stink.
We already know Bush is an idiot and really, we do accept that he was elected. We just don't like propaganda, we expect to be treated as adults and told the truth. So far, there's been far too little of that.
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 04:41 PM
Quote[/b] (wa4brl @ Oct. 14 2005,08:52)]BBC: #Love the new avatar! #If only we had such choices available. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Thanks, I'm looking for a Vinick one as well.
bbc
k4kro
10-14-2005, 07:49 PM
This is Standard Operating Procedure in today's world.
What about the automobile commercials that shout one thing while the fine print on the bottom of the screen is as much as an admission that they are lying? # SOP
What about the presidential debates when the organizers admitted that the audience was full DNC plants? # SOP
What about the "60 minutes" show when Bill and Hillary got a full hour to show America just what a perfectly normal average American couple they were? # SOP
No news here!
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 08:07 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,12:49)]This is Standard Operating Procedure in today's world.
What about the automobile commercials that shout one thing while the fine print on the bottom of the screen is as much as an admission that they are lying? # SOP
What about the presidential debates when the organizers admitted that the audience was full DNC plants? # SOP
What about the "60 minutes" show when Bill and Hillary got a full hour to show America just what a perfectly normal average American couple they were? # SOP
No news here!
Using bad behavior to excuse other bad behavior is just lame UJF.
k4kro
10-14-2005, 08:14 PM
Quote[/b] ]k4kyv Posted on Oct. 14 2005,00:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (K3XR @ Oct. 13 2005,20:48)
Gee, wonder if it was produced by the same crew that brought you Dan Rather and fake National Guard documents.
Now just who do you suppose might have produced the document that was "leaked" to Rather?
That was a set up to embarrass the news media. #Rather & Co. were just careless and swallowed the bait.
You've got to be kidding or have a memory disorder. This forgery came from a well-known Texas Democratic Party activist. Although he was known to be somewhat of a "loose cannon". In other words, he was the perfect patsy the DNC and CBS could portray as a "disgruntled kook". And they did just that.
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 08:17 PM
Frankly, if you are at the least offended by Bush and companies fake town halls and teleconferences with the troops, you are at the very least an idiot, and probably hopelessly stupid.
K6BBC
'Ol Bush looked nervous as a hooker in church,fumbleing and stuttering on that one.
not supporting or bashing but it just seemed that he was caught off guard on that one.
LOL!
he acted like he just got caught in the shower doing that thing that 50 percent of men lie about.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
k4kro
10-14-2005, 08:24 PM
Here we go again! Refusal to accept the truth and posting ad hominem insults. # # another SOP
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 08:28 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,13:24)]Here we go again! Refusal to accept the truth and posting ad hominem insults. # # another SOP
What truth are you talking about?
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 08:31 PM
Okay, let’s try again. If you are not worried that the president needs to stage propaganda events, then there is something wrong with your brain.
KA8NCR
10-14-2005, 09:27 PM
Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,12:49)]This is Standard Operating Procedure in today's world.
What about the automobile commercials that shout one thing while the fine print on the bottom of the screen is as much as an admission that they are lying? SOP
What about the presidential debates when the organizers admitted that the audience was full DNC plants? SOP
What about the "60 minutes" show when Bill and Hillary got a full hour to show America just what a perfectly normal average American couple they were? SOP
No news here!
It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
k6bbc
10-14-2005, 09:51 PM
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 14 2005,14:27)]Quote[/b] (N4UJF @ Oct. 14 2005,12:49)]This is Standard Operating Procedure in today's world.
What about the automobile commercials that shout one thing while the fine print on the bottom of the screen is as much as an admission that they are lying? # SOP
What about the presidential debates when the organizers admitted that the audience was full DNC plants? # SOP
What about the "60 minutes" show when Bill and Hillary got a full hour to show America just what a perfectly normal average American couple they were? # SOP
No news here!
It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. # It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
Bush and company count on the fact that nearly 50% of the people in America will give him a pass because he is a fundamentalist (i.e. believing in the same nonsense they do) and has not drank, cheated on his wife, or done cocaine since her got his life together on his FORTIETH birthday.
bbc
Can someone tell me what happens in that video? Are the troops being fed answers or something? I can't watch that stuff on my compuer.
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 13 2005,15:27)]It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
Hear, hear!
KA8NCR
10-14-2005, 10:59 PM
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 14 2005,14:53)]Can someone tell me what happens in that video? Are the troops being fed answers or something? I can't watch that stuff on my compuer.
Nothing happens in the video. The problem is what you didn't see in the video. Before the conference, they carefully planned who would answer what question, the officers were coached and instructed on how they were expected to respond to the President. The questions seemed to be only those that rehash the President's objectives and needed political spin.
So the upshot is that this wasn't about the troops, it was about trying to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room. If Bush was seriously concerned about the troops, he'd ask a few grunts dodging bullets and not career men who have a life in the military after Iraq.
w8cbc
10-15-2005, 12:08 AM
So, did Haliburton get the recording and distribution contract? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The one point I stay with and rarely ever see raised is that the one real combat veteran in that administration - Colin Powell - was the only one urging caution and let's don't jump into this blindly. He's the only one of that group I had any respect for. Of course, he's gone now.
Powell could see the quagmire coming. So could we all. It's one thing to go in with a clear, limited objective as in 1991 - get 'em out of Kuwait - and another entirely to invade and occupy amongst a largely hostile population.
Didn't the USSR learn this the hard way not too long ago, in Afghanistan? Weren't we snickering at them then for not learning from our own mistakes in Vietnam?
KF0RT
10-15-2005, 12:33 AM
Quote[/b] (n0xu @ Oct. 14 2005,16:16)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 13 2005,15:27)]It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
Hear, hear!
I'm starting to hear a new word that describes our form of government: Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)
What works for General Motors works for the White House.
This is no surprise.
73, Rob
KA8NCR
10-15-2005, 02:48 AM
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Oct. 14 2005,17:33)]Quote[/b] (n0xu @ Oct. 14 2005,16:16)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 13 2005,15:27)]It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
Hear, hear!
I'm starting to hear a new word that describes our form of government: Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)
What works for General Motors works for the White House.
This is no surprise.
73, Rob
Wasn't it during Eisenhower's last speech that he said the military and industrial complex needed to be watched very closely?
KF0RT
10-15-2005, 03:02 AM
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 14 2005,20:48)]Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Oct. 14 2005,17:33)]Quote[/b] (n0xu @ Oct. 14 2005,16:16)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 13 2005,15:27)]It is not SOP, and I'm sorry, I expect better. It should not be tolerated in any situation, and we deserve better.
It's one thing when a company does that little game, but entirely a different matter when your president does it.
Hear, hear!
I'm starting to hear a new word that describes our form of government: Corporatocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy)
What works for General Motors works for the White House.
This is no surprise.
73, Rob
Wasn't it during Eisenhower's last speech that he said the military and industrial complex needed to be watched very closely?
I don't recall (Eisenhower was in office when I was born). Would have to research that a bit.
I do remember the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) being of great concern during the Vietnam war, but a lot of hippies were protesting then, and I'm not convinced they had the whole picture.
A lot of what we're going through today seems like a replay of that, though. We're not seeing much of the industrial side these days, but surely this must exist. All that weaponry isn't coming from the Tooth Fairy.
73, Rob
n7rjd
10-15-2005, 03:08 AM
Quote[/b] (KF0RT @ Oct. 14 2005,14:02)]All that weaponry isn't coming from the Tooth Fairy.
73, Rob
You never know. It's a tougher world than it used to be and the tooth fairy needs to keep up some how. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 14 2005,15:59)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 14 2005,14:53)]Can someone tell me what happens in that video? Are the troops being fed answers or something? I can't watch that stuff on my compuer.
Nothing happens in the video. The problem is what you didn't see in the video. Before the conference, they carefully planned who would answer what question, the officers were coached and instructed on how they were expected to respond to the President. The questions seemed to be only those that rehash the President's objectives and needed political spin.
So the upshot is that this wasn't about the troops, it was about trying to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room. If Bush was seriously concerned about the troops, he'd ask a few grunts dodging bullets and not career men who have a life in the military after Iraq.
Wait, so do you have proof of this? If it's not on the video, how do you know? Also, what's wrong with rehearsing who will answer which questions? Were the soldiers told what specific answers to give?
wd0ct
10-19-2005, 08:25 PM
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 19 2005,12:33)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 14 2005,15:59)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 14 2005,14:53)]Can someone tell me what happens in that video? #Are the troops being fed answers or something? #I can't watch that stuff on my compuer.
Nothing happens in the video. #The problem is what you didn't see in the video. #Before the conference, they carefully planned who would answer what question, the officers were coached and instructed on how they were expected to respond to the President. #The questions seemed to be only those that rehash the President's objectives and needed political spin.
So the upshot is that this wasn't about the troops, it was about trying to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room. #If Bush was seriously concerned about the troops, he'd ask a few grunts dodging bullets and not career men who have a life in the military after Iraq.
Wait, so do you have proof of this? #If it's not on the video, how do you know? #Also, what's wrong with rehearsing who will answer which questions? #Were the soldiers told what specific answers to give?
I saw on msnbc the part with the rehearsing and yes they were told which one was to answer and what to say.
Pure spin.
Quote[/b] (wd0ct @ Oct. 19 2005,13:25)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 19 2005,12:33)]Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Oct. 14 2005,15:59)]Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 14 2005,14:53)]Can someone tell me what happens in that video? Are the troops being fed answers or something? I can't watch that stuff on my compuer.
Nothing happens in the video. The problem is what you didn't see in the video. Before the conference, they carefully planned who would answer what question, the officers were coached and instructed on how they were expected to respond to the President. The questions seemed to be only those that rehash the President's objectives and needed political spin.
So the upshot is that this wasn't about the troops, it was about trying to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room. If Bush was seriously concerned about the troops, he'd ask a few grunts dodging bullets and not career men who have a life in the military after Iraq.
Wait, so do you have proof of this? If it's not on the video, how do you know? Also, what's wrong with rehearsing who will answer which questions? Were the soldiers told what specific answers to give?
I saw on msnbc the part with the rehearsing and yes they were told which one was to answer and what to say.
Pure spin.
If they were given answers to regurgitate for the interview, that's bad news and I agree with the critics here.