Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

cardaway said:
Bush Co. still gets no respect until they allow in front of the mirophone with dissenting opinion. Until then we only get to hear teh other side when the soldiers come back on leave through our freinds and family members.

I agree.

I spoke personally with a doctor who'd been in Iraq last week when I went to visit my grandfather in the hospital. According to my grandfather, who's a staunch conservative who gave to the Bush campaign twice, this man is the finest surgeon in town and well-respected by the whole community. He serves in the Marines and said the situation in Iraq was terrible, verging on Civil War, and we had no business there. His criticism extended to the Democrats who voted for the action as well. My grandfather, again the life-long conservative but also someone of Middle-Eastern descent, agreed with the doctor on all counts and told me to listen carefully to him because he had been to Iraq and deserved our respect.

This was the first time I have ever heard my grandfather say anything remotely negative about a Republican, but he had major criticisms about Bush & Co's handling of Iraq. In fact, his criticism of Bush was uttered with the same contempt he used for Ronnie Earle, if that tells you anything.
 
septbride2002 said:
Last time I checked you brought up bush bashing on the thread. I was addressing this and not mind - reading, I know that is your specialty.

~Amanda

Is Bush bashing bad? He earned it. If he did his job there wouldn't be any bashing. Perhaps he should have tried to be honest and competent. It's too late at this point for Bush. All that's left is for the Republicans that are running for office to put as much distance between themselves and George as is humanly possible. As for the remaining Bush diehards; their loyalty is now nothing but fanaticism. The country has had their fill of neo-conservative, evangelical, right wing drones and is moving ahead. Fortunately these groups have created such a disaster out of America that it will be generations before any of us have to put up with their drivel again.
 
Fortunately these groups have created such a disaster out of America that it will be generations before any of us have to put up with their drivel again.

I can only hope and dream that that is true.

Seriously, I don't know if this country can wait three more years. From history, it is clear that the major cause of any country's failure and ruin has been POOR LEADERSHIP. This nation is not immune. And we have the absolute worse bunch of so-called leaders in our country that I have ever witnessed. It's down right pathetic and, quite frankly, frightening.
 

Oh, let's educate everyone - thanks, sodaseller, that's a good one:

Praetorians (prētôr´ēnz) , bodyguard of the ancient Roman emperors. Growing out of an early troop that served as bodyguard to the general commanding in Rome, they were formally organized in the time of Augustus. The number of cohorts (from 500 to 1,000 men each) forming the guard varied, but in the days of the later empire it was 10. The Praetorians under a prefect attended the emperor wherever he went. They had special privileges and, in the period when the empire declined, held almost unchallenged authority. Constantine I disbanded them in 312.
 
Frank Cross said:
Is Bush bashing bad? He earned it. If he did his job there wouldn't be any bashing. Perhaps he should have tried to be honest and competent. It's too late at this point for Bush. All that's left is for the Republicans that are running for office to put as much distance between themselves and George as is humanly possible. As for the remaining Bush diehards; their loyalty is now nothing but fanaticism. The country has had their fill of neo-conservative, evangelical, right wing drones and is moving ahead. Fortunately these groups have created such a disaster out of America that it will be generations before any of us have to put up with their drivel again.

You'll be citing the same whine after the Dems lose the 2008 election too.

Loyalty to our current president is fanaticism? :rolleyes: and we're drones? :rolleyes: The groups you cite are NOT going away -- they are growing!

America is a disaster?? What part of it do you live in??

People like you will blame the President for everything and give him credit for nothing. Thanks for the your "objective" analysis.
 
Mr. Bush Goes to Tikrit (Sort-of)
By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet
Posted on October 14, 2005, Printed on October 14, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/26826/
Just when you think that President Bush couldn't out-Saddam Saddam any more, he goes and does something that proves you wrong.

If any Iraqis caught the hilarious October 13 videoconference between Bush (at the White House) and troops from the 42nd Infantry Division in Tikrit, it may have seemed like a high-tech version of a familiar scene from the old days, when Saddam used to travel to Tikrit to feel (and, more importantly, to have others feel) his greatness.

The videoconference was a display of just how far the propaganda system has come since Bush took over from Saddam. Instead of visiting Tikrit, which the president lightly acknowledged he could not safely do, Bush addressed -- via satellite -- an adoring bunch of U.S. soldiers that had apparently been given a heavy dose of Kool-Aid before the telecast began.

Oh, there was one Iraqi there--Sergeant Major Akeel from the 5th Iraqi Army Division, whose role in the affair was limited to smiling like a good Iraqi and saying to Bush, "I like you."

Under Saddam, Iraqis were bombarded via their TVs with video of the Iraqi leader meeting his generals in Tikrit, overseeing military parades, listening intently to his commanders, examining their weapons, firing a rifle here, swinging a sword there. For Iraqis, Tikrit represented the mother of all locations for the regime's propaganda commercial shoots. Few were those Iraqis chosen to be in Saddam's midst for these staged commercials, but at least Saddam actually went there.

Two and a half years after the U.S. occupation began, there stood President Bush at his podium in the White House -- in front of a massive plasma TV, holding an earpiece to his head (out in the open this time). Before him, beamed in by satellite, were the 10 handpicked soldiers. They sat in three rows, fawning over Bush and delivering glowing assessments of the situation on the ground.

At one point, it seemed as if one of the soldiers, Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo, was lifting from one of Bush's "major addresses" on Iraq when she told the president, "We began our fight against terrorism in the wake of 9/11, and we're proud to continue it here."

It turns out that the soldiers had actually been coached by Pentagon official Allison Barber before the event, and were given Bush's questions in advance. At one point during the coaching, which was caught on videotape, Barber asked, "Who are we going to give that [question] to?"

At another point, she suggests the phrase, "Sir, together we are working on ..." for a response to a question on cooperation between U.S. and Iraqi troops.

For much of the videoconference, Bush played Fox's Brit Hume as he "interviewed" the soldiers. A telling moment came when Bush asked the troops, "As you move around, I presume you have a chance to interface with the civilians there in that part of the world. And a lot of Americans are wondering whether or not people appreciate your presence, or whether or not the people are anxious to be part of the democratic process. Can you give us a sense for the reception of the people there in Tikrit toward coalition forces, as well as the Iraqi units that they encounter?"

It seems that Bush's presumption about his troops "interfacing" with "civilians in that part of the world" about their anxiousness to "be part of the democratic process" was a pipedream.

Captain David Williams responded by telling Bush, "Sir, I was with my Iraqi counterpart in Tikrit, the city Tikrit last week, and he was going around, talking to the locals. And from what he told me that the locals told him, the Iraqi people are ready and eager to vote in this referendum."

Those sentiments, relayed second-hand from Williams' "Iraqi counterpart," are contradicted by most independent assessments, to which the White House would never dare listen. Furthermore, it provides yet another example of how detached from reality Bush and his minions in Iraq truly are.

There is a simple reason most U.S. soldiers aren't out there chewing the fat with Iraqi "civilians," chatting about how great democracy is: Iraqis overwhelmingly do not want U.S. troops there.

"[Iraqis] aren't sitting in their front rooms discussing the referendum on the constitution," veteran war correspondent Robert Fisk recently said. "The reality now in Iraq is the project is finished. Most of Iraq, except Kurdistan, is in a state of anarchy." Furthermore, the Sunni Arabs of Tikrit, where the soldiers sat during the videoconference, is almost certain to vote a resounding "No" on the U.S.-backed constitution.

And herein lies one of the big farces of Bush's videoconference, and the broader narrative the president needs so desperately to be true. The fact is that Washington will never be able to manufacture a multi-ethnic Iraqi military that is somehow going to deliver or enforce "democracy, American style" in time for the U.S. to withdraw from the bloody, sinking ship that is the Iraq occupation.

The "declare victory and run" option has been gaining steam in Washington as the popularity of the occupation plummets and with key U.S. elections on the horizon. The point of the videoconference appears to have been part of a major White House PR blitz to convince Americans that the Iraqi forces are really taking control of the situation on the ground. Here are just a few of the remarks from the videoconference:

First Lieutenant Gregg Murphy: "But the important thing here is that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi security forces, they're ready, and they're committed. They're going to make this thing happen."

Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo: "I can tell you over the past 10 months we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. We've been working side-by-side, training and equipping 18 Iraqi army battalions. Since we began our partnership, they have improved greatly, and they continue to develop and grow into sustainable forces. Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

President Bush: "The American people have got to know -- and I appreciate you bringing that up, Sergeant Major, about how -- what the progress is like. In other words, we've got a measurement system."

Captain Steven Pratt: "The Iraqi army and police services, along with coalition support, have conducted many and multiple exercises and rehearsals ... Along with the coalition's backing them, we'll have a very successful and effective referendum vote."

Captain Dave Smith: "Sir, our Iraqi partners have been conducting battalion and brigade-size operations since April. They have been planning and coordinating with other Iraqi security forces, such as the Iraqi police and local government agencies, preparing for this referendum. Sir, we as coalition forces, we have taken a supporting role only as they prepare to execute this referendum."

At no point during the teleconference did Bush or the soldiers mention that U.S. troop levels in Iraq have been significantly increasing -- not decreasing -- in recent weeks. There are now more than 156,000 U.S. troops in the country. Nor did Bush mention that, according to his own top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, there is just one Iraqi battalion capable of fighting on its own. Moreover, Bush's portrayal of the readiness of this new, multi-ethnic dream army is proved false by simply reading accounts from major news organizations.

Tom Lasseter from the Knight Ridder news agency recently spent a week on patrol with "a crack unit of the Iraqi army -- the 4,500-member 1st Brigade of the 6th Iraqi Division." He reports that, "Instead of rising above the ethnic tension that's tearing their nation apart, the mostly Shiite troops are preparing for, if not already fighting, a civil war against the minority Sunni population."

That unit is responsible for security in Sunni areas of Baghdad and Lasseter reports "they're seeking revenge against the Sunnis who oppressed them during Saddam Hussein's rule." He quotes Shiite Army Major Swadi Ghilan saying he wants to kill most Sunnis in Iraq. "There are two Iraqs; it's something that we can no longer deny," Ghilan said. "The army should execute the Sunnis in their neighborhoods so that all of them can see what happens, so that all of them learn their lesson."

While Bush needs this referendum to find something positive to say about the miserable occupation, according to Lasseter's report, "Many of the Shiite officers and soldiers said they look forward to the constitution and December elections for a different reason. They want a permanent, Shiite-dominated government that will finally allow them to steamroll much of the Sunni minority, some 20 percent of the nation and the backbone of the insurgency."

Lasseter describes the 1st Brigade, which is held up by U.S. commanders as a template for the future of Iraq's military, like this: "They look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit and more like a Shiite militia."

This, however, is of little concern to Bush. What is unfolding in Iraq now is a push to give the appearance of a visionary plan of US soldiers simply advising, training and instructing the commanders of the new democratic, human rights-loving, multi-ethnic Iraqi army. It is what Noam Chomsky calls a "necessary illusion." The videoconference in Tikrit was a crude evolution in the kind of propaganda Iraqis have lived with for years. But this time, the target audience was in the U.S.


Jeremy Scahill is an independent journalist and a correspondent for the national radio and TV show Democracy Now! He can be reached at jeremy@democracynow.org.

© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/26826/
 
JMD said:
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.

Link please to when/where Clinton, Daddy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Trumann, Roosevelt, we can stop here, did just what Bush did.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
You'll be citing the same whine after the Dems lose the 2008 election too.

Loyalty to our current president is fanaticism? :rolleyes: and we're drones? :rolleyes: The groups you cite are NOT going away -- they are growing!

America is a disaster?? What part of it do you live in??

People like you will blame the President for everything and give him credit for nothing. Thanks for the your "objective" analysis.




Bush approval rating dips to 39 percent - poll
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:46 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

Bush's approval rating dipped in the poll below a mid-September ranking of 40 percent. The survey also found only 28 percent of respondents believed the country was headed in the right direction, NBC reported.

Bush's political challenges have been piling up in recent weeks, from criticism over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, to growing unease over rising gas prices to conservative ******* over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many conservatives are outraged that Bush picked the White House insider with no judicial experience instead of a judge with clear-cut conservative credentials who could be counted on to move the high court firmly to the right.

Twenty-nine percent of people surveyed said Miers was qualified to serve on the highest court in the United States, while 24 percent thought she was not qualified and 46 percent said they did not know enough about her, NBC said.

The poll also found that strong majorities did not believe that recent charges against former House Republican leader Tom DeLay of Texas or a federal investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, were politically motivated, NBC said.

DeLay has been indicted in Texas on money-laundering and conspiracy charges linked to campaign financing. Frist is being investigated over a stock sale.

With the 2006 congressional elections a year away, 48 percent of respondents said they preferred a Democratic-controlled Congress, compared with 39 percent who said they preferred Republican leadership, NBC said.

The 9-point difference was the largest margin between the parties in the 11 years the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had been tracking the question, NBC said.

The poll of 807 adults was conducted from Saturday to Monday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Frank Cross said:
Is Bush bashing bad? He earned it. If he did his job there wouldn't be any bashing. Perhaps he should have tried to be honest and competent. It's too late at this point for Bush. All that's left is for the Republicans that are running for office to put as much distance between themselves and George as is humanly possible. As for the remaining Bush diehards; their loyalty is now nothing but fanaticism. The country has had their fill of neo-conservative, evangelical, right wing drones and is moving ahead. Fortunately these groups have created such a disaster out of America that it will be generations before any of us have to put up with their drivel again.
Did he now? So because he did what every other president has done (and senators and congressperson who does "interviews" like that) he should be bashed? No matter what he does he should be bashed?

He isn't perfect, and he wouldn't have been my first choice for President from the Republican Party but to say he deserves all the bashing he gets - I don't think so. So far I have seen him being bashed for things he has done and things he hasn't done. Why does he deserve it? He gets bashed for things the media misinterprets - he gets bashed for things that were done in a previous (or several previous) presidencies. And if those from the right say something, they are told they are fanatics, drones, non-thinking, rubber stamping, (add in your favorite adjective). If it gets pushed really hard, we are told that we deserve it since the right bashed Clinton for no reason (no, Clinton got bashed because he broke a federal law, not because he had sex - perjury is and was a crime at the time he committed, conspiracy to commit perjury is and was a crime - just as it was in the 1970's, but I digress).

What the country is afraid of is the best the Democrats can come up with - at least to lead their party. Hillary Clinton will never win more than 47% of the vote - she will never win the moderates. Howard Dean will never win more than 20% of the vote, yet they made him their chair. Have you not noticed the way things have been going? It is because people, especially the moderates, are scared. "Smart" John Kerry, when his overseas policies were looked at was much, much more frightening than "stupid" George Bush, because Kerry had it wrong on how to handle the North Koreans. "Smart" Howard Dean is just plain scary whether it is foreign or domestic policies, "smart" Hillary Clinton is just as scary as another term of foreign disaster from her husband (yes, I know, the foreign leaders loved him more than President Bush, but that is exactly what is most scary about it - the French, Germans and Russians do not and should not have our best interest at heart).

The drivel we are tired of is that we should be ashamed for who we are and what we are. The drivel we are tired of is the "I told you so's" coming from the left when they didn't. The drivel we are tired of is no matter what he does, the President is wrong.

The country has been getting polarized since 2000, and what the Democrats do not realize is that they are alienating everyone who is a moderate, Republican and Democrat. And, no one can win any election (except in New York and Illinois, where the 2 huge cities control it all) without the moderates (unless there is a 3rd person running, like President Clinton won in 1992 and 1996).
 
Frank Cross said:
Bush approval rating dips to 39 percent - poll
Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:46 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 39 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I agree - President Bush doesn't stand a chance of getting reelected. Where does this turn into points for the Democrats?
 
RickinNYC said:
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.

A question, please. You spelled Bush as "Busch"............honest mistake or do you see it too?

Another question for the "Bush, Bush he's our man" crowd: In a military that's about 35% black, how come the only people acceptable to be in George's home movie were 11 white people?
 
What the Heck said:
Did he now? So because he did what every other president has done (and senators and congressperson who does "interviews" like that) he should be bashed? No matter what he does he should be bashed?

He isn't perfect, and he wouldn't have been my first choice for President from the Republican Party but to say he deserves all the bashing he gets - I don't think so. So far I have seen him being bashed for things he has done and things he hasn't done. Why does he deserve it? He gets bashed for things the media misinterprets - he gets bashed for things that were done in a previous (or several previous) presidencies. And if those from the right say something, they are told they are fanatics, drones, non-thinking, rubber stamping, (add in your favorite adjective). If it gets pushed really hard, we are told that we deserve it since the right bashed Clinton for no reason (no, Clinton got bashed because he broke a federal law, not because he had sex - perjury is and was a crime at the time he committed, conspiracy to commit perjury is and was a crime - just as it was in the 1970's, but I digress).

What the country is afraid of is the best the Democrats can come up with - at least to lead their party. Hillary Clinton will never win more than 47% of the vote - she will never win the moderates. Howard Dean will never win more than 20% of the vote, yet they made him their chair. Have you not noticed the way things have been going? It is because people, especially the moderates, are scared. "Smart" John Kerry, when his overseas policies were looked at was much, much more frightening than "stupid" George Bush, because Kerry had it wrong on how to handle the North Koreans. "Smart" Howard Dean is just plain scary whether it is foreign or domestic policies, "smart" Hillary Clinton is just as scary as another term of foreign disaster from her husband (yes, I know, the foreign leaders loved him more than President Bush, but that is exactly what is most scary about it - the French, Germans and Russians do not and should not have our best interest at heart).

The drivel we are tired of is that we should be ashamed for who we are and what we are. The drivel we are tired of is the "I told you so's" coming from the left when they didn't. The drivel we are tired of is no matter what he does, the President is wrong.

The country has been getting polarized since 2000, and what the Democrats do not realize is that they are alienating everyone who is a moderate, Republican and Democrat. And, no one can win any election (except in New York and Illinois, where the 2 huge cities control it all) without the moderates (unless there is a 3rd person running, like President Clinton won in 1992 and 1996).

Excellent analysis. Thanks for posting. :sunny:
 
MizBlu said:
Link please to when/where Clinton, Daddy Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Trumann, Roosevelt, we can stop here, did just what Bush did.
I don't have a link, but I do have experience. Anytime someone official was coming by, we were told what we could say (usually nothing), when and how. This was accentuated when there was TV cameras there.
 
Planogirl said:
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.

Don't laugh. They had a phony reporter and part-time male prostitute named Jeff Gannon/Guckert who lobbed softball questions at Scotty McZiegler. Scotty McZiegler knew he was a plant and Gannon/Guckert visited the WH about 200 times without the proper clearance.

I wouldn't put anything past these lying *******s.
 
What the Heck said:
I don't have a link, but I do have experience. Anytime someone official was coming by, we were told what we could say (usually nothing), when and how. This was accentuated when there was TV cameras there.


So you were part of a phony teleconferencing scheme? Do tell.
 
JoeEpcotRocks said:
You'll be citing the same whine after the Dems lose the 2008 election too.

Loyalty to our current president is fanaticism? :rolleyes: and we're drones? :rolleyes: The groups you cite are NOT going away -- they are growing!

America is a disaster?? What part of it do you live in??

People like you will blame the President for everything and give him credit for nothing. Thanks for the your "objective" analysis.


The groups you cite are NOT going away -- they are growing!

Numbers please.

America is a disaster?? What part of it do you live in??

I don't believe this is limited to any geographic region, but if you were to ask the people in Louisanna, Mississippi and Florida I think they would dispute your question mark. You can fill in the blanks regarding the war, economy, energy prices, health insurance, the environment and Homeland security. But hey if you think bush is doing a crackerjack job friend, then God bless ya.
 
rcyannacci said:
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.

Rcyannacci, my friend, you're going to stay hungry. You aren't going to get anything real from Bush because there is nothing real about Bush. What you see is what you get. With Bush, there is no "there" there. He is an empty suit coasting on fumes from 9/11.

The country has changed; Bush hasn't.
 
septbride2002 said:
That all being said - I still don't agree with Bush doing this and I'm not going to stick up for, or try to exchange one sin for another when it comes to Clinton. Just once I would love it if a person on the right posted, 'You know what - I don't agree with that either.'
I have done that.

septbride2002 said:
It is frustrating to post about something you disagree with, despite political affiliation, that there isn't some Bush Fanatic posting back that all you want to do is bash Bush. WRONG! I WANT POLITICIANS TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, I WANT THEM TO STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I WANT THEM TO STOP ACTING LIKE WE ARE BUNCH OF 13 YEAR OLDS AND LAY DOWN AND TELL US WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING RATHER THEN WHAT THEY WANT US TO HEAR. AND IF I HAVE TO START WITH BUSH TO GET MY POINT ACROSS I WILL. BUT THE BUSH FANS ARE SO BUSY TRYING TO TEAR US DOWN THAT THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THEIR FACE! AND THAT MY FRIEND IS WHAT I CALL - DRINKING THE KOOL-AID.
All politicians do that. It is coming from both sides, from the far right and the far left. However, the difference from what I can see is those on the moderate right realize that President Bush will not be re-elected in 2008, those from the far left dont' seem to have caught on. They are still trying to win the 2004 elections, with the same tactics they used then. Like the guy in the joke who wants to "double or nothing" his bet that he lost on the original play when instant replay comes around, except this is real life.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom