White House compounds PR gaffes

[Anti_Hypeman]

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?

Thats even worse for them. Its like your boss asking you how he is doing and if you dont kiss his booty you can go to jail. If anybody responded with anything at all that put Shrub in an unfavorable light they would be finished and they all know it. Especially an officer one bad evaluation report can kill your career. It was a PR event and they were sock puppets.

 

[SezMe]

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.

Somebody said, "Truth is the first casualty of war." In Iraq (or any war zone) what is the "truth?" The answer is, "it depends." Are Iraqis making progress toward democracy? Depends on your viewpoint. Is the Iraq situation a "quagmire"? Depends on your viewpoint.

So the issue of "truthful information" is not particularly relevant here, IMO. I cannot "prove" that standing up to the Prez with unpleasant information would be career killing. But I belive it to be true...and not because Shrub is the current Prez. I think it is true because the military mindset is a strictly hierarchival organization.

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.

Oh, how I wish this was true. Bush has stated that he gets his news and information from his advisors...who are picked based on their loyalty to him. One of the prinicple problems with this presidency is that the adminsitration is immune to bad news because of the "loyal" filtering process.

 

[President Bush]

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.

Would you consider me resignin' worst news? Or have you guessed what's coming already?

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh, how I wish this was true. Bush has stated that he gets his news and information from his advisors...who are picked based on their loyalty to him. One of the prinicple problems with this presidency is that the adminsitration is immune to bad news because of the "loyal" filtering process.

Consider the way Colin Powell was frozen out of the invasion plans, precisely because he had opinions on how it would turn out that were quite negative, and prescient.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Consider the way Colin Powell was frozen out of the invasion plans, precisely because he had opinions on how it would turn out that were quite negative, and prescient.

I noticed in previous jobs that whenever I had an objection to a proposed course of action I was accused of "not being a team player". And when they ignored my suggestions and went ahead with the plan and disaster ensued, you know what? Not one person apologized to me or even admitted I was right.

 

[RandFan]

I find it helps to remember that [some] Republicans will excuse, literally anything this man does. And I really do mean anything.

I don't excuse everything Bush does. I'm a registered Republican. And BTW, it helps to remember that some Democrats will excuse, literally anything that their elected leaders do.

Perhaps the problem is a human trait and not an ideological one. What do you think Mark?

 

[Melendwyr]

I know significantly more reasonable Democrats and Independents than I know reasonable Republicans.

Why do you think that is, RandFan? It's not that I don't encounter a great deal of Republicans, or associate socially only with people who favor my approach to life and politics. So what explanation can there be?

 

[Manny]

Judging from the "Southwest Airlines" thread I'd guess it's because your notion of "reasonable" is five or six standard deviations off the middle of the curve.

 

[Melendwyr]

Judging from the "Southwest Airlines" thread I'd guess it's because your notion of "reasonable" is five or six standard deviations off the middle of the curve.

Just like my IQ! What a coincidence!

 

[RandFan]

...and here we are, with people defending it.

You know, I really get tired of this rhetoric and ad hom. Hey, here is an idea, attack the arguments and not the people making the arguments. And I am currently on your side as it concerns the wisdom behind the actions on the part of the administration. However I think it perfectly acceptable to question held beliefs mine AND yours included. I'm not so dogmatic as to believe that there exists any position that is out of bounds and should never be debated using logic and reason. I'm more interested in the argument and not the shock (shock I tell you, utter shock, oh my) you display at those making counter arguments. Your utter disbelief that someone could take an opposing view is not a logically valid argument nor is it logically persuasive. Yes, when I'm lacking clear thinking skills I have been known to attack the person, offer opinion and engage in rhetoric. But I hope to Ed there were few times that I made a post that was entirely lacking in logically valid argument. The times that I did I usually ended up apologizing.

Sorry for the rant. Carry on.

 

[Melendwyr]

I try to determine which side is correct before I start arguing. Once I do so, unless someone can point out a genuine error on my part or can bring new information to the table, I'm justified; if neither of those conditions is met, then I *should* be shocked that people are taking the other side.

The point of reason is not to decide upon a position, then try to defend it. The point is using the best available evidence to discover and accept the truth. If you're interested in defending, not in truth-seeking, we're not ever going to get along.

 

[RandFan]

I try to determine which side is correct before I start arguing.

But that is the point. You are NOT arguing.

Logic & Fallacies

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

What proposition are you trying to establish? I can't make it out from your rhetoric.

 

[RandFan]

If you're interested in defending, not in truth-seeking, we're not ever going to get along.

If you are only interested in rhetoric and ad hominem then you are correct. We aren't going to get along.

 

[RandFan]

I know significantly more reasonable Democrats and Independents than I know reasonable Republicans.

Why do you think that is, RandFan? It's not that I don't encounter a great deal of Republicans, or associate socially only with people who favor my approach to life and politics. So what explanation can there be?

1. It all depends on how you count "hits and misses". Randi deals with this phenomenon on a regular basis (please see Randi's commentary archive). People have a tendancy to see what they want to see. That is why people believe that John Edwards actually talks to dead people.
2. Your experiences are anecdotal.

"The true critical thinker accepts what few people ever accept -- that one cannot routinely trust perceptions and memories." --Alcock, "The Belief Engine"

"...human beings, in trying to make sense of their world, must make mistakes. On the one hand, they miss things that are there and, on the other, invent things that are not." --Susan Blackmore "Psychic Experiences, Psychic Illusions"

 

[fishbob]

So every news organization that airs interviews that include some off-camera preperation is faked or promoting a lie?

Duh. Depends on whether they promote it is 'spontaneous'.

What RT sez: 'DON'T LIE TO ME'.
Also - don't spin. Don't twist. Don't fold, spindle, or mutilate.

 

[President Bush]

Yes, when I'm lacking clear thinking skills I have been known to attack the person, offer opinion and engage in rhetoric. But I hope to Ed there were few times that I made a post that was entirely lacking in logically valid argument.

Uh-huh. Perfected good manners and then made them indistinguishable from rudeness. Gives me a headache.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's mindboggling how Bush is President. He was even elected the second time around.

Depending on how you define "elected", there is scope for reasonable doubt about that.

 

[Cylinder]

Duh. Depends on whether they promote it is 'spontaneous'.

What RT sez: 'DON'T LIE TO ME'.
Also - don't spin. Don't twist. Don't fold, spindle, or mutilate.

Do you think it an ethical practice to allow interview participants to know the subject on which they are expected to comment beforehand? Do you think it is a common industry practice? What exactly about that interview violates your expectation of spontaneity?

Do you really expect any president to conduct an ambush-style interview on US troops? Really,

Do you think that the soldiers participating in the interview wanted to know what would be asked of them and the technical flow of the events?

What's the difference between this type of "scripting" and others I have cited in this thread?

Does the Million Dollar Challenge, apparently a fully scripted event by the standards put forth in this thread, qualify as an honest exercise or is it a fraud and publicity stunt?

 

[LeFevre]

I know significantly more reasonable Democrats and Independents than I know reasonable Republicans.

Why do you think that is, RandFan? It's not that I don't encounter a great deal of Republicans, or associate socially only with people who favor my approach to life and politics. So what explanation can there be?

Hmmm, maybe it has to do with your age, where you live, your own personal ideals. . . Unless you think there is a really big difference between Demublicans and Republicrats? The right has the freaky religious nuts, the left has anarcho, trees were cryin' sap when other trees were cut nuts.

You really think that because you personally only seem to meet more reasonable Democrats and Independents that has any weight?

Share with us what explanations you think explain your personal experience.

 

[jay gw]

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.

Right. The kind of fool that couldn't possibly have engineered an invasion of Iraq for example....