Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

[inaminute]

Bush is really too dumb to handle any questions he's not prepared for. He can't think on his feet.

Wasn't the President the one asking the questions, and the soldiers answering? I guess this means the soldiers are too dumb to handle questions they're not prepared for. They obviously can't think on their feet.

This was never about what would make the soldiers look like idiots in front of their Commander in Chief - it was about the Commander in Chief not looking like an idiot in front of the American people.

I'm well aware that it was supposed to be about bashing the President. Unfortunately, the soldiers are the ones who look incompetent as they were the ones answering the questions asked by the President.

 

[sodaseller]

This is just more shameless and relentless bashing of George Bush. This is nothing more than a standard photo op that nearly every president that has ever lived has done.

I will a agree that is a cheesy and completely phoney thing to do, but its not specific to George Bush. But its another example of selective outrage from all the Bush-haters. Funny how the media forgets about all the times Clinton and every other president did the same thing.

Not even close to accurate. There is no selective outrage or true equivalence - those are just talking points. Had Clinton done something similar (he didn't), the outcry would have been far worse

 

[BostonTigger]

This is just more shameless and relentless bashing of George Bush. This is nothing more than a standard photo op that nearly every president that has ever lived has done.

I will a agree that is a cheesy and completely phoney thing to do, but its not specific to George Bush. But its another example of selective outrage from all the Bush-haters. Funny how the media forgets about all the times Clinton and every other president did the same thing.

I totally agree. Didn't you know Bush is the source of all evil?

 

[CheshireVal]

Wasn't the President the one asking the questions, and the soldiers answering? I guess this means the soldiers are too dumb to handle questions they're not prepared for. They obviously can't think on their feet.

My meaning is that he doesn't handle off-the-cuff situations very well. He gets flustered, and he's a horrible public speaker. He wouldn't want to risk the soldiers saying something that he didn't have a canned response for.

 

[JMD]

Not even close to accurate. There is no selective outrage or true equivalence - those are just talking points. Had Clinton done something similar (he didn't), the outcry would have been far worse

Clinton didn't do the same thing? In 1994, Clinton attended the 50th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. Pretending there were no cameras around, he came across some stones while walking by himself down the beach. He knelt down and placed the stones in the shape of a cross. Then he sat there for a while pretending to be sad. The picture of him on the beach in front of the cross he had just made was everywhere. It later came out, that someone had placed those stones there ahead of time and the whole entire thing was staged.

And funny you don't remember that. How come that didn't get the same press as Bush's little pr stunt? I think you proved my point even more. Selective outrage.

 

[LoraJ]

I don't care what President has staged press conferences in the past. It is UNACCEPTABLE no matter who did it.

I find it pitiful that the appologists are once again making excuses for Bush. Why are you accepting of propaganda? You don't find it scary?

 

[sodaseller]

Clinton didn't do the same thing? In 1994, Clinton attended the 50th anniversary of the D-Day invasion. Pretending there were no cameras around, he came across some stones while walking by himself down the beach. He knelt down and placed the stones in the shape of a cross. Then he sat there for a while pretending to be sad. The picture of him on the beach in front of the cross he had just made was everywhere. It later came out, that someone had placed those stones there ahead of time and the whole entire thing was staged.

And funny you don't remember that. How come that didn't get the same press as Bush's little pr stunt? I think you proved my point even more. Selective outrage.

How are the two similar? Try to use logic. The comparison makes little sense If you want to talk at the level of generality of photo ops, you have a point, albeit a meaningless one, as this President does photo ops every day, and doesn't get criticized liike this. So that rather proves my point.

To make the point of "selective outrage" - (your words, not mine), you must compare events that are similar in a significant way, i.e., the things that are objected to here were not objected to there.

It remians inane to suggset that Bush is mistreated. First, he likely would never have gotten into office but for an eight year calculated campaign of hatred that exponentially greater than any criticism ever aimed at this President. Second, no President in recent memory has received more fawning coverage. To equate the "criticims" of Bush with the critiocism of Clinton is to equate Katrine hitting South Florida with Katrina hittting MS and LA - after all, bith were Hurricanes that caused damage and death. Ya'll just love the victimization schtick, even if it makes no sense

 

[RickinNYC]

Wasn't the President the one asking the questions, and the soldiers answering? I guess this means the soldiers are too dumb to handle questions they're not prepared for. They obviously can't think on their feet.

ANYONE can ask questions and ANYONE can give the answers when they are handed a script, and provided they have a basic 8th grade reading comprehension. This came across as a junior high "Our Town" production. And for what it's worth, those soldiers can absolutely think on their own feet. In fact, as the son and brother and brother in law of career service men and women, I have nothing but respect for those men and women overseas. They were only doing EXACTLY as they were instructed to do.

I'd have much more respect for Busch if he were capable of speaking for himself and not acting as a puppet. I think that goes for most "Democrats" (boo hiss, eh?). Most of us would and do support our President once he's elected, regardless of party affiliation, however, given Busch's track record, some of us just can't do it. In fact, I can't think of any President in my lifetime who's greatest success is in dividing the country he is supposed to lead.

 

[JMD]

How are the two similar? Try to use logic.

Ok, maybe your right. Using the anniversary of major battle where thousands of people were slaughtered as a PR opportunity isn't that bad.

To make the point of "selective outrage" - (your words, not mine), you must compare events that are similar in a significant way, i.e., the things that are objected to here were not objected to there.

I just did. You are outraged at Bush's actions, but dismiss Clinton's. Similar situations, but you have 2 completely different opinions on each. Selective outrage.

It remians inane to suggset that Bush is mistreated. First, he likely would never have gotten into office but for an eight year calculated campaign of hatred that exponentially greater than any criticism ever aimed at this President. Second, no President in recent memory has received more fawning coverage. To equate the "criticims" of Bush with the critiocism of Clinton is to equate Katrine hitting South Florida with Katrina hittting MS and LA - after all, bith were Hurricanes that caused damage and death. Ya'll just love the victimization schtick, even if it makes no sense

Lol. I'm not even going to respond to this incoherent, illogical rhetoric.

 

[sodaseller]

So you read the criticism of the "scripting" as referring to the President being scripted? Very creative. And what of Tartuffe?

 

[snoopy]

How are the two similar? Try to use logic. The comparison makes little sense If you want to talk at the level of generality of photo ops, you have a point, albeit a meaningless one, as this President does photo ops every day, and doesn't get criticized liike this. So that rather proves my point.

To make the point of "selective outrage" - (your words, not mine), you must compare events that are similar in a significant way, i.e., the things that are objected to here were not objected to there.

It remians inane to suggset that Bush is mistreated. First, he likely would never have gotten into office but for an eight year calculated campaign of hatred that exponentially greater than any criticism ever aimed at this President. Second, no President in recent memory has received more fawning coverage. To equate the "criticims" of Bush with the critiocism of Clinton is to equate Katrine hitting South Florida with Katrina hittting MS and LA - after all, bith were Hurricanes that caused damage and death. Ya'll just love the victimization schtick, even if it makes no sense

No kidding. They spent millions of dollars going through Clinton's underwear drawer with a fine tooth comb for goodness sake! Yet when this President is criticized for even the most blatant blunders, the Republicans cry foul. Its amazing, really.

 

[momof2inPA]

I will a agree that is a cheesy and completely phoney thing to do, but its not specific to George Bush. But its another example of selective outrage from all the Bush-haters. Funny how the media forgets about all the times Clinton and every other president did the same thing.

I attended a town hall meeting when Clinton was in office. The questions were not scripted or pre-rehearsed, and the questioners were not pre-selected. Think what you like. Whatever makes you feel better, whatever makes keeps you from admitting that your vote was an embarrassing mistake.

 

[rcyannacci]

ANYONE can ask questions and ANYONE can give the answers when they are handed a script, and provided they have a basic 8th grade reading comprehension. This came across as a junior high "Our Town" production. And for what it's worth, those soldiers can absolutely think on their own feet. In fact, as the son and brother and brother in law of career service men and women, I have nothing but respect for those men and women overseas. They were only doing EXACTLY as they were instructed to do.

OK, bash on Bush all you want, but leave Thorton Wilder and "Our Town" alone!!!

Our service men and women have sacrificed a lot to wear their uniforms and I think they deserve to be heard without being scripted by the Administration. I want to hear their story, and I would think that the president would want the same.

After 6 years of this nonsense and stagecraft, we are starving for something real from this man.

 

[RickinNYC]

OK, bash on Bush all you want, but leave Thorton Wilder and "Our Town" alone!!!

Our service men and women have sacrificed a lot to wear their uniforms and I think they deserve to be heard without being scripted by the Administration. I want to hear their story, and I would think that the president would want the same.

After 6 years of this nonsense and stagecraft, we are starving for something real from this man.

I completely agree. I would love nothing more than to hear real comments, thoughts and opinions, whether positive or negative, in supoort of or against, from U.S. soldiers. But in the case of those soldiers in this particular scenario, their scripted comments were nothing but disengenuous and it came across loud and clear.

The national and international media, et al... did not make them look like fools, the Oval Office's own media department did that.

 

[Aimeedyan]

I thought the whole thing was hilarious myself. And of course not surprising.

I don't find it hilarious that people continue to defend his administration (again). It makes me scratch my head and wonder what planet they're living on.

(edited because I was a bit harsh)

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder why they don't just hire actors and dress them in service uniforms? It would just as "real" and no real soldiers would have to be bothered with this stuff.

 

[snoopy]

Our service men and women have sacrificed a lot to wear their uniforms and I think they deserve to be heard without being scripted by the Administration. I want to hear their story, and I would think that the president would want the same.

After 6 years of this nonsense and stagecraft, we are starving for something real from this man.

VERY well said! I agree 100%! There is nothing really more to say as far as I'm concerned.

 

[septbride2002]

No kidding. They spent millions of dollars going through Clinton's underwear drawer with a fine tooth comb for goodness sake! Yet when this President is criticized for even the most blatant blunders, the Republicans cry foul. Its amazing, really.

Exactly it is really sad. Lets hang a man for having sex in the oval office, but lets make excuses for someone who scripts conferences and treats our soldiers like puppets. Seriously I thought some of you would have more respect for our soldiers then that.

~Amanda

 

[yeartolate]

Our service men and women have sacrificed a lot to wear their uniforms and I think they deserve to be heard without being scripted by the Administration. I want to hear their story, and I would think that the president would want the same.

One question though -----Would want or should want?

 

[Galahad]

Is there another story besides the one in the OP? Where does it say the soldiers where told WHAT to say? It seems they were told who will address which question and in what order, but it doesn't say they were reading a script. Is there another story published somewhere?