President Bush Quotes Soldier ... Selectively

Brown

Penultimate Amazing
Brown
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
12,984
Here is a column from the Des Moines Register about President Bush's use of remarks made by a soldier during Bush's recent speech. The column is written by the reporter to whom the remarks were made, and who published the remarks. (The reporter wrote several stories from Takrit in October of this year, and the soldier in question was quoted in the article of October 19, and possibly other articles as well. These stories are available from the Des Moines Register for a fee.)
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051202/OPINION01/51202001/1001/NEWS
Bush said: "Our troops in Iraq see the gains that Iraqis are making. Lt. Col. Todd Wood of Richmond Hill, Ga., is training Iraqi forces in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. (Wood) says this about the Iraqi units he is working with:

" 'They're pretty much ready to go it on their own. . . . What they're doing now would have been impossible a year ago. . . . These guys are patriots, willing to go out knowing the insurgents would like nothing better than to kill them and their families. . . . They're getting better, and they'll keep getting better.' "
Click to expand...
The President used the soldier's actual words, but chose not to use all of them or to put them in context ...
The thing is, the official White House transcript of the speech included ellipses, those little dots that show the reader something was left out of what was being quoted. Problem is, there are no ellipses in an oral presentation.

So, to set the record straight, we'll provide a bit of context. It's important because Bush singled out Wood as an example of how the Iraqi army and police are improving, and ultimate success will mean Iraqi forces can defend and stabilize the country and American troops can come home.
Click to expand...
The President made the soldier's quotes seem to be from one statement. Actually, they were cherry picked from four different places in the article.

The quotes--correctly and accurately--represent the soldier's observations concerning training of Iraqi soldiers. But the Bush speechwriters selected only the good part, and ignored the "chief frustration faced by the American soldiers — at least the ones in Tikrit," namely, that the Iraqi army cannot operate independently because it is poorly equipped:
Indeed, Wood said, "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own." Continuing his thought that day in October, Wood went on to say, "But until they are properly equipped, they'll need our help." Bush left out that second part.
Click to expand...
The soldier followed up on equipment problems, and expressed some concern about how things would turn out. The President omitted those concerns from his quotes. Going by the President, everything the soldier said was rosy. The implication, of course, is that US forces may soon be ready to withdraw. The soldier's actual remarks, however, clearly expressed the contrary:
But Wood will be among the first to tell you that U.S. forces will be in Iraq until that country's army has the equipment it needs.
Click to expand...
 
Brown said:
Here is a column from the Des Moines Register about President Bush's use of remarks made by a soldier during Bush's recent speech. The column is written by the reporter to whom the remarks were made, and who published the remarks. (The reporter wrote several stories from Takrit in October of this year, and the soldier in question was quoted in the article of October 19, and possibly other articles as well. These stories are available from the Des Moines Register for a fee.)
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051202/OPINION01/51202001/1001/NEWS
The President used the soldier's actual words, but chose not to use all of them or to put them in context ... The President made the soldier's quotes seem to be from one statement. Actually, they were cherry picked from four different places in the article.

The quotes--correctly and accurately--represent the soldier's observations concerning training of Iraqi soldiers. But the Bush speechwriters selected only the good part, and ignored the "chief frustration faced by the American soldiers — at least the ones in Tikrit," namely, that the Iraqi army cannot operate independently because it is poorly equipped:The soldier followed up on equipment problems, and expressed some concern about how things would turn out. The President omitted those concerns from his quotes. Going by the President, everything the soldier said was rosy. The implication, of course, is that US forces may soon be ready to withdraw. The soldier's actual remarks, however, clearly expressed the contrary:
Click to expand...


Bush misleading us? There is certainly no precendent for that...
 
To save the apologists some valuable time. When you respond, you only need to respond with the number corresponding to your thoughts.

1. Brown is a leftist, Marxist, Saddam lover.
2. Brown is a self loathing, freedom hating, America bashing traitor.
3. Clinton did it.
4. Brown would have preferred Saddam stayed in power.
5. Why do you hate the troops fighting in Iraq.
 
Last edited:
Brown!! Glad you are back.

And you brought us this . . . [ tears wrapping paper ] . . . evidence of administration cherry-picking. Oh. Thanks. But we already have a bunch of these. [grumble, grumble - cheesy early Christmas present ]
 
Last edited:
Brown said:
The President used the soldier's actual words, but chose not to use all of them or to put them in context
Click to expand...

So a journalist is complaining that Bush did what journalists do as a matter of routine? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could imagine such a thing? Isn't it the president's role, after all, to be completely impartial and objective, unlike those journalists? How dare he leave anything out! Only journalists are allowed to do that, like Carlson conveniently leaving out Bush's statement, "We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission," or "These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington" to create an impression that Bush is preparing for a premature exit.
 
Ziggurat said:
So a journalist is complaining that Bush did what journalists do as a matter of routine? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could imagine such a thing? Isn't it the president's role, after all, to be completely impartial and objective, unlike those journalists? How dare he leave anything out! Only journalists are allowed to do that, like Carlson conveniently leaving out Bush's statement, "We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission," or "These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington" to create an impression that Bush is preparing for a premature exit.
Click to expand...

I don't like Bush at all, but I have to agree. I don't think Bush was doing anything different than what most politicians do.
 
fishbob said:
And you brought us this . . . [ tears wrapping paper ] . . . evidence of administration cherry-picking. Oh. Thanks. But we already have a bunch of these. [grumble, grumble - cheesy early Christmas present ]
Click to expand...
There are things in this world that inspire an actual laugh out loud response. This, for me, was one of them. :roll:
 
Ziggurat said:
"These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington"
Click to expand...

These words don't strike you as just a bit ironic? I don't think that a single military commander would dare to endanger his career by opposing what "the boss" told him to do. Most of these commanders have careers that extend to Vietnam and Korea, I can't see any of them volunteering their head for the chopping block by saying anything other than what they're expected to say about the war and the associated problems. Even Colin Powell has expressed regret for his part in making the case for war.

I've seen and heard interviews of several soldiers in Iraq and several who have returned (including members of my own family) and in spite of the dedication and empathy they feel for the guys in their unit (prompting the, "I'll stay/return until we finish" quotes from several soldiers) none of them have been asked if GOING was a good idea (not that it makes any difference to anything other than their freedom of speech).

In spite of what the media or the Bush administration would have you believe, concern for their fellow soldiers in a combat zone DOES NOT extend to the stupid eagerness to invade. Over 2,000 deaths later with no end in sight (which is EXACTLY what "stay the course" means) I know a LOT of people who wouldn't have supported this idiotic war in the first place had they been able to see this far into the future.
 
clk said:
I don't like Bush at all, but I have to agree. I don't think Bush was doing anything different than what most politicians do.
Click to expand...

Just two questions:

1. Do you really, honestly think that this makes it any better?
2. Can you really, honestly claim that you would have cut a Democrat - say, Clinton - the same slack under the same circumstances?
 
Mephisto said:
Most of these commanders have careers that extend to Vietnam and Korea, I can't see any of them volunteering their head for the chopping block by saying anything other than what they're expected to say about the war and the associated problems.
Click to expand...

That's quite an accusation to say that senior military commanders uniformly won't risk the short remainder of their careers for the lives of their men. If true, it would speak very poorly of them - is that really your contention?

I've seen and heard interviews of several soldiers in Iraq and several who have returned (including members of my own family) and in spite of the dedication and empathy they feel for the guys in their unit (prompting the, "I'll stay/return until we finish" quotes from several soldiers) none of them have been asked if GOING was a good idea (not that it makes any difference to anything other than their freedom of speech).
Click to expand...

There are a number of possible explanations for why you didn't see this question posed to them, but it's interesting that only one suggests itself to you. Yes, maybe they weren't asked that because that would show that they didn't support the war. Or maybe they weren't asked that because they DID support the war, and while it's fine to "support the troops", the last thing the media wants to do is show support for the war. We don't know which it was for those soldiers, do we? In fact, isn't it possible they WERE asked that question, but the interviewer cut it out because they didn't like the response for whatever reason? Isn't it possible that the journalists were themselves doing the exact same selective quotation that Bush was criticized for in the OP?

In spite of what the media or the Bush administration would have you believe, concern for their fellow soldiers in a combat zone DOES NOT extend to the stupid eagerness to invade.
Click to expand...

Strange, but to me it looks like what the media would have me believe and what Bush would have me believe aren't the same thing at all, but rather pretty damned different.
 
Ziggurat said:
Strange, but to me it looks like what the media would have me believe and what Bush would have me believe aren't the same thing at all, but rather pretty damned different.
Click to expand...

Lately, the media have indeed started doing their jobs again, rather than acting like paid flunkies for the Republican Party. That's a good thing, even if you don't like it. Free Press being vital to liberty and all that.
 
Ziggurat said:
So a journalist is complaining that Bush did what journalists do as a matter of routine? I'm shocked! Shocked, I say! Who could imagine such a thing? Isn't it the president's role, after all, to be completely impartial and objective, unlike those journalists?
Click to expand...
Ah, the argument from misdirection - drawing attention away from the problem and onto those reporting it.

Lying, dissembling, and being dishonest are equally disgusting no matter who's doing it, Ziggy.
 
clk said:
I don't think Bush was doing anything different than what most politicians do.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that. Few politicians are as selective in areas of foreign policy as George W. Bush.

When forming policy, his practice is to listen to those with whom he agrees, and pay no attention to others.

When developing policy, his practice is to focus on those facts that conform to his view, and pay no attention to others.

When advocating a policy publicly, his practice has been to stress only those things in favor of his view, and ignore the others.

This practice has resulted in an enormous loss of national credibility and prestige. Virtually no one in the world trusts Bush, and with good reason.

You did not see this extreme selectivity from Clinton, who insisted upon being told both good news and bad, and who declined to paint a rosy picture when the picture wasn't rosy. You didn't see this degree of intentional ignorance from the elder Bush, either.

You have to go back to Reagan to find a president who was so loose with the truth in matters of foreign policy, but it is generally believed that Reagan lacked the mental horsepower and the memory to absorb the details and nuances, and these were the reasons why he made so many bone-headed remarks. (In Reagan's day, however, the White House made a concerted effort--at times a half-hearted one--to issue corrections or clarifications after the President misspoke, which was often. The Bush White House has made no such effort.)

Even Nixon was not as blatantly selective as little Bush about matters of foreign policy. Nixon's style was to be more secretive than selective.

Perhaps the closest president in recent memory who was so selective in his public policy presentations was Lyndon Johnson, especially in his advocacy for stepping up the Vietnam war effort. But even then, Johnson at least had some advisers who were telling him that Vietnam was a mess and that the war could not be won.
 
Melendwyr said:
Ah, the argument from misdirection - drawing attention away from the problem and onto those reporting it.

Lying, dissembling, and being dishonest are equally disgusting no matter who's doing it, Ziggy.
Click to expand...

But lying is not even part of the criticism against him here. You are being dishonest yourself in pretending it is. The criticism is that he's not telling the ENTIRE truth by using a specific selection of quotations in order to boost his argument. Whatever you want to call it, it's not lying, and you should have been able to figure that out, Mel.

And I'm not drawing attention away from the problem so much as pointing out that I don't think it's really a problem to begin with. I mean, really, who would ever think that a politician would tout the benefits of their agenda without outlining all its potential problems? Is that somehow new, or unheard of, or beyond the pale? No, it is not. It is how politics is done. And I don't simply mean that in a "get used to it" way either: I mean that politics cannot ever get BEYOND doing that, even in the best of worlds. Telling "your side" of things is what politics is about, people know this, and they process information accordingly. I fail to see why this is remarkable.

Had Bush told an actual lie in the case under discussion, then you might have a point. He didn't, and you don't. And if you have to resort to citing other instances where he supposedly lied, well, you might as well start a new thread, because you're no longer dealing with THIS particular speech, which is the topic of the thread and my response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom