• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged

Just out of curiosity Anav, can you imagine a situation in which a higher up would hand you a written script and tell you that the script is what you are to say when the President asks you a question?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Just out of curiosity Anav, can you imagine a situation in which a higher up would hand you a written script and tell you that the script is what you are to say when the President asks you a question?

I have TWO POINTS to make; one on thIS thread and the other about POSTERS AND MODERATORS:

1. I've seen some here try to portray military personel as mindless and bowing to whatever they are told to say. This is far from the truth. Any Marine, Army, Navy, Air Force or National Guard personel can go to the press and the press will withhold their name. It has been done before and it will be done again. Being former military and knowing what I went through at the time I was, it is the weakest of arguments to suggest that our men and women in uniform can't think or speak for themselves. They most certainly can.

2. My second point is about myself. This forum is disinegrating quickly into a mire of name calling and insult. This forum is for the purpose of expressing ideas, posting opinion and engaging in debate. Insulting another with names is beyond the respect due anyone that has an opinion or wishes to take part in any forum, even this one. Instead of insulting someone it should be a chance to post your opinion of their's and the issue of the thread. Maybe even propose ideas you think might lead to improvement. The media fosters name calling every day but it has no place between posters.

I have placed a complaint with the moderators of this forum about the name calling and insults. Although I don't register many against me I come here to read opinion and debate the issues I am interested in. I shouldn't have to wade through nor ignore the posts of those I may agree with or not when they are full of the disrespect that the moderators seem to either overlook or, in some instances, treat with brevity. I have seen it and read it.

Up front? I have complained and asked the moderators to conduct this forum in the framework of a political debate forum and there are standard rules for just that. I am asking that no one be suspended or banned. I am asking that the rules for forum conduct be posted by the moderator's and that posters stepping outside decency or the rules themselves should be directed to go read those rules. If that doesn't work then I believe the rules provide for dealing with those who want it personal instead of a place of ideas, opinion and debate.

I have been a moderator and not the best by any means. I just don't see the moderators doing their job here and I for one will leave this forum if they don't start. I informed them of that knowing I am no great loss. I just refuse to take part in a melee when my purpose is ideas, opinion and debating the issues.

Thank you all.
:duel :cool:
 
AlbqOwl said:
Just out of curiosity Anav, can you imagine a situation in which a higher up would hand you a written script and tell you that the script is what you are to say when the President asks you a question?



Being retired Navy I will take that one........It does not happen.........
 
AlbqOwl said:
Just out of curiosity Anav, can you imagine a situation in which a higher up would hand you a written script and tell you that the script is what you are to say when the President asks you a question?

Thanks for answering for me NavyPride. A retired brother CPO can always speak for me.
 
ANAV said:
Thanks for answering for me NavyPride. A retired brother CPO can always speak for me.

Thank you for your service my brother chief....Keep up the good fight against the radical left my friend.........
 
gordontravels said:
I have TWO POINTS to make; one on thIS thread and the other about POSTERS AND MODERATORS: :duel :cool:


1. I've seen some here try to portray military personel as mindless and bowing to whatever they are told to say. This is far from the truth. Any Marine, Army, Navy, Air Force or National Guard personel can go to the press and the press will withhold their name. It has been done before and it will be done again. Being former military and knowing what I went through at the time I was, it is the weakest of arguments to suggest that our men and women in uniform can't think or speak for themselves. They most certainly can.

Good point. "Off the record" comments by military personnel will likely provide a much more truthful assessment as to the condition in Iraq than some silly Q&A with the pres.
 
gordontravels said:
I have TWO POINTS to make; one on thIS thread and the other about POSTERS AND MODERATORS:

1. I've seen some here try to portray military personel as mindless and bowing to whatever they are told to say. This is far from the truth. Any Marine, Army, Navy, Air Force or National Guard personel can go to the press and the press will withhold their name. It has been done before and it will be done again. Being former military and knowing what I went through at the time I was, it is the weakest of arguments to suggest that our men and women in uniform can't think or speak for themselves. They most certainly can.

2. My second point is about myself. This forum is disinegrating quickly into a mire of name calling and insult. This forum is for the purpose of expressing ideas, posting opinion and engaging in debate. Insulting another with names is beyond the respect due anyone that has an opinion or wishes to take part in any forum, even this one. Instead of insulting someone it should be a chance to post your opinion of their's and the issue of the thread. Maybe even propose ideas you think might lead to improvement. The media fosters name calling every day but it has no place between posters.

I have placed a complaint with the moderators of this forum about the name calling and insults. Although I don't register many against me I come here to read opinion and debate the issues I am interested in. I shouldn't have to wade through nor ignore the posts of those I may agree with or not when they are full of the disrespect that the moderators seem to either overlook or, in some instances, treat with brevity. I have seen it and read it.

Up front? I have complained and asked the moderators to conduct this forum in the framework of a political debate forum and there are standard rules for just that. I am asking that no one be suspended or banned. I am asking that the rules for forum conduct be posted by the moderator's and that posters stepping outside decency or the rules themselves should be directed to go read those rules. If that doesn't work then I believe the rules provide for dealing with those who want it personal instead of a place of ideas, opinion and debate.

I have been a moderator and not the best by any means. I just don't see the moderators doing their job here and I for one will leave this forum if they don't start. I informed them of that knowing I am no great loss. I just refuse to take part in a melee when my purpose is ideas, opinion and debating the issues.

Thank you all.
:duel :cool:

Um, I'm a bit uncomfortable with you using my post as the reference for this post. Did you find my post objectionable in some way? Do you think I have called anyone any names?

I do agree that those who do engage in name calling, piling on, harrassment of members they don't like, and other childish behavior is a huge turn off for me and disruptive to the thread. If I have been guilty of that in any way, I would like for it to be pointed out, and I will take my lumps.
 
Iriemon said:
Good point. "Off the record" comments by military personnel will likely provide a much more truthful assessment as to the condition in Iraq than some silly Q&A with the pres.

Ah, I could be wrong but I think the point he was trying to make is our military are not the mindless zombies some of you on the left in this forum portray them to be.......
 
AlbqOwl said:
Um, I'm a bit uncomfortable with you using my post as the reference for this post. Did you find my post objectionable in some way? Do you think I have called anyone any names?

I do agree that those who do engage in name calling, piling on, harrassment of members they don't like, and other childish behavior is a huge turn off for me and disruptive to the thread. If I have been guilty of that in any way, I would like for it to be pointed out, and I will take my lumps.

I was surprised at that too because I have not heard you insult or call anyone names..........Maybe it was just and oversight on Gordon's part........
 
Navy Pride said:
Ah, I could be wrong but I think the point he was trying to make is our military are not the mindless zombies some of you on the left in this forum portray them to be.......

Others may have claimed this; I do not. Most of the military personnel I worked with were bright, honorable men and women. But there is a chain of command, and it seemed pretty clear to me that criticizing the activities of someone up that chain of command was not a career enhancing activity.
 
Navy Pride said:
I was surprised at that too because I have not heard you insult or call anyone names..........Maybe it was just and oversight on Gordon's part........

Thank you. I certainly hope so, but I do have a temper that gets the best of me now and then. A self check is always a good thing. :smile:
 
Iriemon said:
Others may have claimed this; I do not. Most of the military personnel I worked with were bright, honorable men and women. But there is a chain of command, and it seemed pretty clear to me that criticizing the activities of someone up that chain of command was not a career enhancing activity.

The military is not a democracy.It would never work if it was........Still no military person has to obey any unlawful order.......

I was talking about some of your comrades on the left, not specifically you..........
 
AlbqOwl said:
Thank you. I certainly hope so, but I do have a temper that gets the best of me now and then. A self check is always a good thing. :smile:

You are not alone there.....I get infuriated by some of the posts by our friends on the left about our president and our military.....The very people that are fighting and dying to give them the right to spew their hate.....

How ironic is that?
 
I've mentioned this on another thread, but for those who might have missed it, I'll repost the gist of it again (translation: I don't remember which thread it was in and I'm too lazy to go searching for it)...

Anyone that thinks military folks do not express their opinions openly and often is just not aware of 1) the number of blogs by active dury military folks today, 2) the number of participants on forums like this (Gunny, for example), and 3) the number of active duty military folks sending regular e-mails back to their hometown papers for publication.

For example, go to www.iraqthemodel.com and scroll down and a bit and look on the right side. In addition to all the other links to blogs there, you'll also find blogs from active duty military folks on-the-ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
Iriemon said:
Others may have claimed this; I do not. Most of the military personnel I worked with were bright, honorable men and women. But there is a chain of command, and it seemed pretty clear to me that criticizing the activities of someone up that chain of command was not a career enhancing activity.


You used the word "criticize". There is a difference between criticism and input and guidance. When an order is given..it is given. This does not mean that the order is arbitrarily barked. There is consultation and a weighing of options. The best decision then becomes an order.

Now, in the heat of battle, orders are barked and followed. There is no time to always consult in a fire fight and there isn't always time to ask for guidance after an IED attack where another unexploded IED may exist and an ambush may be awaiting (good luck catching the Marines off guard). You may be aware of how "soldiers" refer to 2nd Leiutenants as "butter bars" and we tend to be dissapointed when one shows up. He is the lowest ranking officer and is often a Platoon Commander right out of Boot Camp. This is why training is imperitave. In order to know what to do and in order to understand receiving certain orders, it is desperately important to train exhaustively on every level.
 
Last edited:
Deegan said:
If you're trying to prove Bush is not very good at public speeches, you win, but that's not at issue here. The issue was, is the staging of this inappropriate, I don't think so, I would like to hear why you think it is?
I think rehearsing how to pass the mike is fine, telling people where to look in the camera or when to listen makes sense.

However if you watched the entire piece, or if you read the entire transcript published in this thread you'll see that this event was staged & scripted, at least in terms of the questions (not the answers).

The proof is in the transcript of the rehearsal and the actual event. The woman playing Bush asked the exact question(s) that he asked. She asked them better because he stuttered and yammered his way through them, but they were identical questions. Therefore if the military personnel chosen to participate already knew the questions in advance then the entire event was staged, a set up, not genuine.

I want to repeat that the answers given were genuine, not scripted out. But I also know they were softball questions that each one of them had time to prepare an answer for. That is not how the event was promoted or portrayed, and that is why, IMHO, it's raised such a bruhaha.

Let's recall a genuine event last year when Ahole Rummy went to Iraq and was "embarrassed" by questions from personnel re the lack of proper body armor and overall armor? The guy who asked that question was given the question by a reporter because it was an issue that mattered to the soldiers sitting there. Did you see Rummy's face and answer when faced with a legitimate non-ass kissing question?

This event was guaranteed to not have one instance of anything contrary to the Bush cabal party line. The soldiers picked believe in their President and their mission, which is admirable. What is not admirable is that they were used by Bush et al to promote the concepts that Bush wants to promote re the war.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an actual Q&A "British House of Commons" style on a regular basis where real questions are asked and where real, unscripted answers are given (by Bush I mean, not by the military participants)? It will never happen with Bush as President because he is intellectually incapable of such a procedure, he won't allow himself to be exposed for what he truly is.

You know this war is a nightmare for most Americans. Each day more and more of us from ALL parties join the anti-war movement. When I read some of the BS here that is all Liberal bashing, especially as it relates to this war, I am amazed. Why? Well since 58% of Americans now oppose the war I think it's quite safe to write that Liberals (sadly) do not make up 58% of the populace. I would think that even the most ignorant amongst us must know therefore that the anti-war crowd is made up of Americans of all political persuasions? Yet some of you write post after post after post stating that the anti-war anti-Bush movement contains only Liberals.

I don't believe that Bush represents the Republican party anymore. How could he? He's a spend and spend and kill politician who has created more pork and more cronies than anyone I can think of since LBJ.

It really takes a lot to be considered a worse and more evil President than Richard M. Nixon, but good old Georgie has won a spot in that elite circle of nightmare Presidents who threaten our country's very fiber and existence.

Nixon lied and covered-up what amounted to white collar crimes. Bush and his bastard clan lied and have killed almost 2000 Americans, injured close to 20,000 more, killed 10's of thousands of Iraqis and maimed who knows how many more all based on lies.

The paper argument that Bush went with the intelligence at the time, or that Clinton agreed with the intelligence is part of the cover up. Clinton never planned on invading and conquering Iraq, nor did anyone else except Georgie and his posse. As I wrote yesterday, Harry Truman's most famous quote is "The Buck Stops Here". Too bad Bush is too much of a sniveling swine to accept this most sacred responsibility. He's such a lowlife that he refuses to own up to his decisions, he PASSES THE BUCK, he doesn't STOP THE BUCK.
 
GySgt said:
You used the word "criticize". There is a difference between criticism and input and guidance. When an order is given..it is given. This does not mean that the order is arbitrarily barked. There is consultation and a weighing of options. The best decision then becomes an order.

Fair enough. But we are talking about whether we can rely on the statements of a bunch of officers in a photo op with the president. Not a situation where a statement that things are screwed up would likely be taken as "input and guidance"
 
Iriemon said:
Fair enough. But we are talking about whether we can rely on the statements of a bunch of officers in a photo op with the president. Not a situation where a statement that things are screwed up would likely be taken as "input and guidance"


If you watched the interview, you can plainly see from the body tone and the manner inwhich the questions were asked that they were genuine.

Why is this even an issue?.... "I'm the President and I think I'm going to interview some soldiers on national TV and try to get some support back for them over there. Cheney, round me up some soldiers that hate my guts...let's do this thing."

Let it go.
 
GySgt said:
If you watched the interview, you can plainly see from the body tone and the manner inwhich the questions were asked that they were genuine.

Why is this even an issue?.... "I'm the President and I think I'm going to interview some soldiers on national TV and try to get some support back for them over there. Cheney, round me up some soldiers that hate my guts...let's do this thing."

Let it go.

[QUOTEWhy is this even an issue? ][/QUOTE]

Gunny its because some of our friends on the left although they have nothing but disdain and contempt for our military it just torques their jaws that our military has so much admiration and respect for the Commander in Chief......
 
GySgt said:
If you watched the interview, you can plainly see from the body tone and the manner inwhich the questions were asked that they were genuine.
Do you think it's appropriate to promote an event as unrehearsed and unscripted when your fellow soldiers knew the questions that were going to be asked and had time to prepare their answers?

If it were a test in school and some of you were given the questions before the test is that cheating? If another group of soldiers were asked the same questions without prior knowledge would their answers truly be the "genuine" ones?

I wrote before that I have no doubt that the soldiers who participated answered the questions in their own words, period. The issue is that they were told the questions beforehand and had time to "script" their own answers in their own words.

The event wasn't framed that way, which is the objection.

Navy Pride can write over and over again the same inane posts about how it rubs Liberals the wrong way. He's not bright enough to understand the objection vis a vis promoting an event as one thing when it was something else. You, Gunny, however, are obviously able to discern the difference in the promotion of the event as an unrehearsed Q& A vs. the reality that the soldiers were asked the questions before Bush asked them, so their answers were not spontaneous. This was promoted as a spontaneous Q&A.

The objection is in the promotion of the event, not the words answered by the soldiers. Does that make sense (don't answer Navy Pride, this question is not for you since I realize this is an abstract concept for you that exceeds the normal black and white methodology you must employ in your posts)?
 
26 X World Champs said:
Do you think it's appropriate to promote an event as unrehearsed and unscripted when your fellow soldiers knew the questions that were going to be asked and had time to prepare their answers?

If it were a test in school and some of you were given the questions before the test is that cheating? If another group of soldiers were asked the same questions without prior knowledge would their answers truly be the "genuine" ones?

I wrote before that I have no doubt that the soldiers who participated answered the questions in their own words, period. The issue is that they were told the questions beforehand and had time to "script" their own answers in their own words.

The event wasn't framed that way, which is the objection.

Navy Pride can write over and over again the same inane posts about how it rubs Liberals the wrong way. He's not bright enough to understand the objection vis a vis promoting an event as one thing when it was something else. You, Gunny, however, are obviously able to discern the difference in the promotion of the event as an unrehearsed Q& A vs. the reality that the soldiers were asked the questions before Bush asked them, so their answers were not spontaneous. This was promoted as a spontaneous Q&A.

The objection is in the promotion of the event, not the words answered by the soldiers. Does that make sense (don't answer Navy Pride, this question is not for you since I realize this is an abstract concept for you that exceeds the normal black and white methodology you must employ in your posts)?


Of course it wasn't spontanious. It wouldn't do much for the point of the effort for the President to be asked what Football team he predicts for the Super Bowl.

These questions were genuine and screened -OR- they were given some questions to choose from. Either way, what does it matter? They were good questions and they were common questions that many have asked. To say that these soldiers asked questions that they were forced to ask, an individual would also have to say that the Iraqi in the interview was told to pretend he was appreciative. The President has had plenty of talks with military personnel off camera when he is off on his trips. This particular interview was to serve a purpose, which was to center around retrieving lost support.

In a more local setting......The Marine Corps has an annual Sergeants Major symposium where all of the Sgts Major of the Marine Corps attend. The purpose is to get legitimate questions to the Commandant regarding issues of the Corps. Before the unit SgtMaj attends, he gathers up all of the questions that us Staff Non-Commissioned Officers have and he weeds through and finds the most common and the most practicle questions. These questions are asked at the symposium. There are some similarities with the afore mentioned teleconference. I do not know for sure, but something like this could have happened (it's happened before), where questions were volunteered by the masses and the best were chosen.

I just don't get what the bid deal was.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
Gunny its because some of our friends on the left although they have nothing but disdain and contempt for our military it just torques their jaws that our military has so much admiration and respect for the Commander in Chief......

The disdain is for the CiC.
 
Iriemon said:
The disdain is for the CiC.

I would call it more like jealousy of the rapport this president has with the troops.......
 
Navy Pride said:
I would call it more like jealousy of the rapport this president has with the troops.......

LOL call it whatever you want
 
Double Post...some how.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom