Bush teleconference with Soldiers staged - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-15-2005, 12:49 AM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 11:05 AM
I find everything about this administration to be disingenuous. This event is no different.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 01:12 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:05 AM
Interesting take here

http://278medic.blogspot.com/
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 12:06 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Wow...I was about to link to the same site as you! Surprise surprise!

So the poor soldier, who was taken advantage of by the Bush administration in this "staged" event has a different take on it.

And the silence in fym is ..... telling as always....

God forbid there be an opposing side that, shudder, caused us to think......

[Q] Yesterday, I (bottom right corner in the picture) was chosen to be among a small group of soldiers assigned to the 42ID's Task Force Liberty that would speak to President Bush, our Commander-in-Chief. The interview went well, but I would like to respond to what most of the mass-media has dubbed as, "A Staged Event."

First of all, we were told that we would be speaking with the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, so I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us NOT to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President.
We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it's the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.

We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the US, while the media uses that freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!

The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, "So...What's REALLY going on over there?" Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY? It's like they WANT this to turn into another Vietnam. I hate to break it to them, but it's not.

Tomorrow morning, the Iraqi people will vote on their constitution. The success of our mission or the mission of the Iraqi security forces is not defined by the outcome of that vote. If the people of Iraq vote this constitution down, that only means that the FREE, DEMOCRATIC PROCESS is at work in Iraq. They are learning to voice their opinions in the polling stations, not through violence. If it is voted down, they will have the chance to draft an even better version; One that may better serve the people of Iraq. This is up to them. It is history in the making and I will not let the media or anyone else (who has not spent more than two weeks here) tell me otherwise. I have been here for almost a year. I have seen the progress made in so many ways from January's elections to this referendum. Don't tell me what the Iraqi people can or can't do. They will tell you with their VOTES!

[/Q]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 01:02 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:05 PM
Appreciate the post, Dread. I'm too lazy sometimes to link. I think there are varying perceptions of the war and it's important to see them all. It may not ultimately change my opinion, but it humbles me to see something perceived differently than I perceive it.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 02:53 PM   #20
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Erm...I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this story one way or another...but I don't see where this sergeant's version, in fact, contradicts the interpretation that it was staged...?? He more seems to be saying, Yes of course the exchange was rather predetermined, but because of the perspective I already had going into it anyway, I had NO problems with ANY of it and NO patience with any of you sniveling ingrates that do...??

Glad to see that he at least feels good about what he's doing over there, though. (I mean that sincerely...)

Who selected these participants, and what were their criteria for selecting them?
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 03:34 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
So there is staged? and then there is STAGED?

You do not see the original article as attempting to paint the "staging" as something else?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:19 PM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
So there is staged? and then there is STAGED?

You do not see the original article as attempting to paint the "staging" as something else?


sorry dread, but while the officer's statement might be sincere, it has nothing to do wtih the fact that the whole thing was staged. he also spends his time saying how awful the MSM media is and defending the mission and also, you'll note, answering very specific critiques of the mission, as opposed to talking about the staging of the event itself. that seems almost like an afterthought, because the soldier seems more interested in bashing the media -- playing into the whole liberal media canard, again, and echoing the oldest Rovian play in the book -- and thumping his chest than actually talking about the event.

and for the few sentences that he does talk about the event, he basically admits that, yes, the questions were planned, the responses were canned, and all in order to ensure that 1) the president never has to do any real thinking on his feet, and 2) no questions that might possibly cast anything other than a positive light on the Iraq mission could possibly have been asked.

it was every bit as authentic as bush's "town hall meetings" during the elections where everyone was pre-screened, given questions to ask, and those that dissented were escorted out of the hallway.

and this man's take, btw, is quite different from what i've heard from soldiers.

but those soliders were from liberal massachusettes, so i suppose they're just trying to tear down the poor president.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 06:31 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Funny, every soldier I have spoken with by far has the same feeling about the media's portrayal in Iraq.

I must be talking to the wrong soldiers.......

Must be that they are trying to blindly support the President.

Nice to see you kept the blah blah to the end. I read the whole post.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 06:37 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and for the few sentences that he does talk about the event, he basically admits that, yes, the questions were planned, the responses were canned, and all in order to ensure that 1) the president never has to do any real thinking on his feet, and 2) no questions that might possibly cast anything other than a positive light on the Iraq mission could possibly have been asked.
Clearly the eyewitness participant does not understand what happened there.

Listen, I can respect legitimate disagreements....but this is garbage.

The soldier's points about the media are legitimate gripes. If they were reporting the news without looking for an angle to screw one side or the other, that would be one thing.

The LACK of reporting about the work of the troops is criminal. But what the fuck do I know...
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 09:11 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 04:05 PM
If there is lack of reporting of the REAL work of the soldiers, Dread, it;
s NOT the "media's " fault. Once upon a time, journalists were not muzzled as to where they could go, what they could or could not report on, and how they reported it. The term "embedded" did not exist. I have watched numerous documentaries of Vietnam, seen lots of TV Vitnam footage. Interesting that the soldiers are seen as dodging enemy fire, doing brave things, saying things like (we cleaned out a nest of VC last night at that patch of jungle" etc.. Tet, on CBS, looked heroic, (as historians later correctly calimed it was, in the short term at least...the media painted the picture of a triumphant mission then. Interestingf to see the young Dan Rather interviewing a soldier who gave a astirring first-hand account of a victorious firefight.) Sure, they showed wounded soldiers, ewtc, and some of the "action" was staged...but I never saw footage of soldiers who criticized Johnson or Nixon. If there was such footage, interesting that the "liberals" of today have culled it.)

Now, today, you have media basicaly muzzled. They are not free to go anywhere. There is virtually no "going out and getting the story." Any TV footage (Whw\ere was the coverage of that big battle in first week of Sept? The preint medai had to report that, and Time hardly was critical). Iraq, in effect, has shown us that journalism is dead. Maybe of the journos were free to :go out and get the story" on thier own, instead of being treated like potential criminals, they'd go loking for the good things.

This may siound incredibly niaeve but hey, I am the history buff, and there IS no media. I think Katrina woke a lot of journos up who had gone to sleep. They didn't look for sick and dying people in NOLA...the tragedy found them. Mayber they
re thinking a lot more now.

Cencorship is one thing...but if we always had the level of censorship we had now, how do we have the black and white footage of WWII? The firestorms of Dresden? The aftermath of Hiroshima? The firebombing of Tokyo, before that? Graphic footage of wounded and dying US troops and vicious arial dogfights? Don't tell me that the media is not bound to react in some way to increased levels of censorship. Secrecy, after all, is the hallmark of this adminstration.
That said, one thing DOES piss me off in a major way:

I am really sick and tired of the LACK of media attention the war has gotten, and the public's lack of interest. We go around wearing our yellow ribbons but otherwise, the country couldn't give a . The bird flu is getitng more attention then the troops. It;s well past "active huirricane" stage now. And even of the rare puboic days when the war is frint page news, the public could care less. I don't support the war, or Bush, but those who do, don;t seem to be doing much better, ..unless they personally know a vet. I was in chburch last week and talking to someone who had a close friend over there, and she did not even know a Constiution had been written up, much less the Oct 15 date. As I gave her the rundown, I was seething inside....
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 10:34 PM   #26
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
So there is staged? and then there is STAGED?

You do not see the original article as attempting to paint the "staging" as something else?
The particular article posted here is an incoherent mess that doesn't illustrate much of anything, IMO. It makes an assertion (the conference was staged) but then can't make up its mind whether to support that by focusing on the lack of spontaneity, or the apparent unanimity of perspective among the participants.

I wasn't expressing a conviction that the "staged" claim was obviously true, let alone the deductive leap that Sgt. Long is some helpless tool; I thought I made that clear with my first sentence, but I guess not. My point was simply that I didn't, and don't, see this sergeant's blog entry as decisively establishing that no "fortuitous coincidences" (my phrase) were involved in this teleconference.

But perhaps that was not what you meant by "an opposing side that caused us to think" and I misunderstood you???

Honestly, I'm not trying to be combative here...please don't *assume* I got whatever you did out of the original article, because I think maybe I didn't...
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-15-2005, 10:37 PM   #27
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The LACK of reporting about the work of the troops is criminal. But what the fuck do I know...

Who are you assuming disagrees with you about this?
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 10-16-2005, 06:01 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 12:05 PM
I don't think actual truth is ever balanced, but I think it is healthy to see different perspectives. I wish Iraq well and hope they can finally create a government that is capable of protecting the rights of the minorities and women.

Do I think the soldiers believed what they were saying? Probably.
Do I think they were handpicked because of that belief? Probably.
Do I think the President wants to hear all views? I doubt it.

For better or worse, the President, has through a series of misstatements by himself and his administration, careful screenings of the audiences at his speeches, an almost psychic ability of the President to see into the hearts of people (wrongly, most times, it seems) and a proven tendency to dig in his heels at any type of opposition anywhere. ("Nobody's going to tell me what I am going to do."), may have ultimately squandered the trust of the American people.

I doubt that the media knows or portrays the whole picture. I doubt that individual soldiers know the whole picture. I'm pretty sure the President doesn't want to see the whole picture. So all a public trying to understand what is going on is to find whatever information it can wherever and try to make a semi-cohesive picture for themselves. And the picture I've made for myself is that some things are going right and other things are going terribly wrong. I'll listen to anyone I don't see as a mouthpiece for either side.

A lot is going to hinge on a successful and honest ratification of a Constitution and the actions of a government that can stabilize the country and protect the rights of the citizens. It still may not answer the question of whether we should have gone in there in the first place, but it may help to see some good come out of it.
All that is a big "if". And we may not know for years or dozens of years. (or maybe, hopefully, miraculously things will fall into place sooner.)
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-16-2005, 08:26 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


Who are you assuming disagrees with you about this?
Generally if I am responding to someone in particular I quote them.

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-16-2005, 08:29 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040


This may siound incredibly niaeve but hey, I am the history buff, and there IS no media. I think Katrina woke a lot of journos up who had gone to sleep. They didn't look for sick and dying people in NOLA...the tragedy found them. Mayber they
re thinking a lot more now.

I think you are wrong...but I have no time to debate it. My impression is that there are MANY more things going on besides dodging bullets. Many more positive and constructive things, that I highly doubt there are restrictions on reporting.

The embedded reporters were three years ago.

But then again, WTF do I know. Maybe you are correct in your assumptions that the governement wants NO GOOD PRESS.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com