• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

White House compounds PR gaffes

During WWII the media and the government took extreme care when showing FDR to prevent the public and the enemy from learning about his disability. Every shot was carefully coordinated so you never saw a wheelchair or braces while filming him spontaneously.

Does that make FDR dishonest?

I think we've already established that everybody does the kind of thing that happened here and many do much more than is evidenced here. Were Kerry's Town Hall meetings really spontaneous? Or were audience members pre-selected to ask questions they'd submitted beforehand? Does dubya really deserve to be singled out for something that everyone else does without remark?

Think about that....would this be a story if you'd heard it about anyone else?
 
Dan Beaird said:
Does that make FDR dishonest?
Click to expand...

To some degree, yes.

Does dubya really deserve to be singled out for something that everyone else does without remark?
Click to expand...

I think a case can be made that the current Bush administration control such things more tightly than has been normal -- rather understandable considering that Bush is an exceptionally poor public speaker for a politician.

Think about that....would this be a story if you'd heard it about anyone else?
Click to expand...

To me, the story isn't so much that the Bush administration did this, but that they did it so clumsily. The later press briefing by McClellan was just awful. (Admittedly, it was awful across the board, and not just on this issue.)
 
All of this seems to me to be part of the Karl Rove genius. Let the public see what an ineffectual doofus the president is. When and if he does show sane and ethical leadership, the GOP handlers will make great political hay.....

Charlie (at least he didn't annouce another tax cut or new invasion) Monoxide
 
Leif Roar said:
Why are you so certain of that? McClellan wasn't:
Click to expand...
Fair point. The answers weren't scripted by the White House.



THE PRESIDENT: I didn't want to give you -- I didn't want to throw you a hardball there, Captain.

Considering the questions and who were to answer them had been determined in advance, that's a very strange thing to say unless you want to present it as a more spontaneous conversation and less of a rigged event.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's a standard joke when someone hands off a question to someone else. Everyone in the administration seems to love that same stupid joke. "I'll be happy to answer your questions, unless you ask a hard one and then I'll toss it over to that guy over there."
 
Dan Beaird said:
During WWII the media and the government took extreme care when showing FDR to prevent the public and the enemy from learning about his disability. Every shot was carefully coordinated so you never saw a wheelchair or braces while filming him spontaneously.

Does that make FDR dishonest?
Click to expand...

To the extent that he influenced the press coverage it does. But of course, I do not see how FDR's physical handicap can be regarded as relevant consideration -- in spite of whatever the hoi polloi may imagine are the attributes of a "strong leader". We do make sound distinctions between men who comb their hair a certain way to cover a baldspot, or insert lifts in their shoes to make themselves appear taller, from those who, say, plagiarize or lie on resumes. Moreover, we can distinguish really important lies (like getting a blow job) from inconsequential lies (take your pick on this administration in affairs either foreign or domestic).

Yes, many people knew from the outset that this was theatre (see for instance real time posts on messageboards critical of the event as it was occuring). However, learning the extent of the hamhanded deception certainly justifies greater outrage.
 
manny said:
So unlike the reporter in that exchange, you believe that the correct answer to that question is no, what they were saying was not sincere." Is that correct?
Click to expand...

The answer is they dont have the option. Under the UCMJ they could go to jail for doing anything that makes GW look bad. If asked to read a scripted question to him they dont even have the option of refusing to do it. Nobody can say that they are sincere because they dont have any option but to be political propaganda pawns when told to do so.

Maybe the exact words were not put in the soldiers mouths but everybody knows they did not have the option of asking real questions. They were there to fluff the president not to have a discussion.

At the very least they would get drummed out and lose all benefits. They might as well have Cheney read him the questions its a captive audience in the strictests sense.
 
They don't even respect the American public enough to create a convincing lie, 'cause they believe people will accept it anyway -- and here we are, with people defending it.

You can fool all of the people some of the time...
 
Dan Beaird said:
I think we've already established that everybody does the kind of thing that happened here and many do much more than is evidenced here. Were Kerry's Town Hall meetings really spontaneous? Or were audience members pre-selected to ask questions they'd submitted beforehand? Does dubya really deserve to be singled out for something that everyone else does without remark?
Click to expand...

Kerry?? and not Clinton??

I am so relieved that we are finally moving on.
 
Nah, just taking a break so it'll sound fresh when used against the next Clinton. ;)
 
Anti_Hypeman said:
The answer is they dont have the option. Under the UCMJ they could go to jail for doing anything that makes GW look bad. If asked to read a scripted question to him they dont even have the option of refusing to do it. Nobody can say that they are sincere because they dont have any option but to be political propaganda pawns when told to do so.

Maybe the exact words were not put in the soldiers mouths but everybody knows they did not have the option of asking real questions. They were there to fluff the president not to have a discussion.

At the very least they would get drummed out and lose all benefits. They might as well have Cheney read him the questions its a captive audience in the strictests sense.
Click to expand...

You have this situation backwards. He was asking them questions, not the other way around. It's not even clear that they were given the questions beforehand, rather than the areas of discussion and the order those areas would be discussed in. What the story tells me is that they were picked because of what they have been doing - someone involved in training the Iraqis was there to answer his questions about that, someone operating in Tikrit to answer questions about the situation in Tikrit, etc.

So running with your premise - under the UCMJ, can some staff officer give them an order to lie to the Commander in Chief?
 
Last edited:
Leif Roar said:
To me, the story isn't so much that the Bush administration did this, but that they did it so clumsily.
Click to expand...
On the nose. They are so crap at everything. They're even crap at getting elected, but the Democrats are crappier. And the craziest thing is that it doesn't seem to matter how crap they are. They just carry on carrying on.

As you say, fooling some of the people is generally enough at any particular time. The next Republican candidate will be running against The Government, and doesn't everybody hate the gumment? No way will (s)he be casting aspersions on the sainted Bush Minor, of course. No connection between Him and The Government. :rolleyes:
 
So every news organization that airs interviews that include some off-camera preperation is faked or promoting a lie?
 
manny said:
When I'm seeking information from my guys, I often let them know what I'm going to ask about beforehand.
Click to expand...
But there is an important difference here, Manny. These "guys" CANNOT criticize the person they are speaking to (the Prez). He is their ultimate commanding officer. They can get in trouble for any criticism they might make. Will your guys get fired if they give you bad news?
 
For the Defenders of yet another attempt by Bush to hide behind Soldiers - how about this recent revelation.


". . . . The videoconference his handlers set up with U.S. soldiers in Iraq was staged, as the AP's Deb Reichmann just pointed out.

But here's another part of the flack attack you may not know: The soldier on the left side of the front row was actually a flack herself, though she didn't reveal it during the regime's 24-minute infomercial.

Her name is Corine Lombardo, . . . "


http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001948.php

Sorry, but if you're going to have conversations with Soldiers on the Front Lines - none of them should be Public Affairs representatives.
 
SezMe said:
But there is an important difference here, Manny. These "guys" CANNOT criticize the person they are speaking to (the Prez). He is their ultimate commanding officer. They can get in trouble for any criticism they might make. Will your guys get fired if they give you bad news?
Click to expand...
See, but I'm not sure that's true. And even if it is, I'm not sure that providing truthful information which happens to contradict the President's position without directly criticizing him would be improper. I'd need a lot more information convincing me that your assertion is accurate before I'd opine on it.

That said, I have complete confidence that these guys were chosen in no small part because they broadly agree with the President and with the mission in Iraq. This was a propaganda exercise, after all. The President's real briefing on the questions he asked comes from the Joint Chiefs or somesuch, not a Captain.

For the record, I have a special (but small, since it comes out of my pocket, not the company's) bonus pool for the guy who brings me the worst news that I didn't already know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom