Let me get this straight:

The press has a video tape of a 'staged' event, and they have not produced one clip of the prep-woman telling the soldiers what to say about Iraq.
Why not show the soldiers unrehearsed answer to the prepper? Might the inital answers be consistent with what was later said? To be honest, when is the last soldier you saw interviewed in Iraq, let alone an Iraqi?
That would be a story.

The problem is, can anyone in America name a press person in Iraq? Are there any?

Great job press. Vietnam had better coverage 30 years ago. You have come a long way (cry) babies. You have imbeds, and the first soldiers I see are when the thing is winding down, on a teleconference that you mock. you think they might have said something insightful or important, but instead I get to see more reporters tellingme what to think. Next they'll have Dana Milbank reading body language.

From the clips they show, it seems pretty benign. The press remains pretty malignant.

>Of course, they had to close with an eyebite from somebody hostile to Bush:

I see you couldn't resist doing something along the same line, throwing in a name that has absolutely nothing to do with the story at hand!

This is from the White House briefing:

QUESTION: How were they selected, and are their comments to the president pre-screened, any questions or anything...

MCCLELLAN: No.

QUESTION: Not at all?

MCCLELLAN: This is a back-and-forth.

How much of a back and forth is it when you decide where the questions are going first?

What does it tell you when an administration has to meticulously plan and arrange the questioning in a photo op event with soldiers?

I don't see the AP trying to make a scandal out of this. You're overreacting.

Also, as for "The press has a video tape of a 'staged' event, and they have not produced one clip of the prep-woman telling the soldiers what to say about Iraq.":

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/13.html#a5361

done and done.

Wasn't Kerry a LT(j.g.), not a full Lieutenant? That would make him equal in rank to a First Lieutenant, not a Captain, in the other services. With rank coming as quickly as it did during Viet Nam, that really ain't something to brag a lot about.

Actually you are leaving something out. She did say 'drilled through' when referring to the questions which leaves room to speculate on whether the answers were scripted as well as the questions. Publish a full transcript and you see why there is this concern. My own correspondence with soldiers on the ground is limited to those in Southern Iraq with the British Army and the news is not very good unless you like to see the Iraqi military and police in the hands of Sadr and other militant clerics close to Tehran.

I personally think he should have just had an informal and personal chat with the soldiers without making it public. Also, there is plenty of press in Iraq but they have a hard time getting out of the Green Zone because it is so dangerous... more press killed in this war than many others.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L28219813.htm

Many of them were killed by US forces and some of those under questionable circumstances.

Actually there are some very good studies about the press and the war in Vietnam and many of them conclude that the reason why the Tet Offensive worked so well for the Communists was that the coverage contrasted so sharply against the coverage up to Tet which was largely controlled by the US Armed forces. Suddenly, the press merely had to shoot outside of their hotel rooms rather than being bussed in by helicopter to certain battle sites. It made the government look dishonest about how well things were going and seeded doubt in public mind about how things were going (per Cronkite). This is especially ironic since Tet & Khe Sahn were big defeats for the communists. It just goes to show how carefully managing news can backfire and lead to unintended results. It's not entirely the fault of the press and you can see something similar happening now as the rehtoric and reality gap starts to frustrate people.

Reading "Imperial Grunts" by Robert Kaplan, and you'd be surprised how many Captains are involved in "boots on the ground" action.

Re: octavius. That link you gave didn't have a video showing the woman telling the troops what to say. I watched the whole thing. It showed the woman telling the troops what the President would begin saying. Try again, not done at all.

"I don't see the AP trying to make a scandal out of this."

I see more discussion about the prep-work, than the actual report of the soldiers.

Octavius is going to be in for a shock this Saturday, to see a significantly larger turnout relative to the Jan 30 election. Juan Cole is going to be trying to explain how political arguments are actually an even more vicious form of Civil War.

Anondson: thanks for saving me the trip. If there was a case for the prepper putting words in the mouths of the soldiers to be made, I wouldn't have been directed to an obscure dem website. Hardball/Countdown would have shown it 8 times by now. 8-ball would have given a quote.

And they justify their lies, because they believe Bush is a liar...

Although I wasn't crazy about the particular format chosen for the event, Riechmann's anti-Bush bias is about as subtle as octavius's "You're overreacting" disingenuousness. If the overall tone of the article doesn't convince, then check out the juxtaposition of the following lines from the article:

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

She didn't write these sentences in this order by accident. There's an implication that somehow the third sentence belies the second. And the left (and press) wonders why they're accused of not supporting the troops.

Humph...

And I suppose the media types (including the AP writers) NEVER stage any of their interviews, videos, taking points, and bogus memo stories.

The leftist scribblers are without a pot to pee in here... or anywhere else for that matter.

The dirty little secret is that this was less staged than the talking head shows.

Heck, the debates are more tightly controlled, and the press gets its shorts in a bind whenever anyone asks why we bother with them.

I am shocked I tell you. Next you thing you know, Bush will have the State of the Union written for him, instead of him ad-libbing it like every other President has ever done.

Anyone remember similar headlines over interviews with Sadaam? Arafat? Castro?

The "free" press has certainly fallen far. What would it have taken for any of them to interview the questioners afterwards and report if or if not the answers were representative and truthful? Leaving their hotel bar in the green zone to wait outside a video conference area in the green zone isn't that hard of duty.

Once an institution (like the leftoid MSM) can't recognise its own corruption they enter a death spiral (of increasingly extreme actions), seemingly hoping for someone, anyone, to put it out of its misery. For all their advantages, the MSM is doing everything it can to create a wide opportunity of unmet needs for the new media.

I find it amazing that the MSM outlets still have customers.

"Octavius is going to be in for a shock this Saturday, to see a significantly larger turnout relative to the Jan 30 election."

Why do you assume this? Why would one assume that someone who isn't a fan of Bush is going to just naturally be pessimistic and not expect Iraqis to vote?

That's a pretty stupid assumption.

Also, I'm not sure what it has to do with Bush or a staged (or not) "back-and-forth".

Oh my god! A telecast going out accross the world had some sort of planning and maybe even a script. Someone needs to email Oprah and tell her this method has been introduced.

Note to Jack-off journalist: the "Green Zone" was long ago redesignated "International Zone" because of the danger. It is not hard to get out of the IZ, just expensive. Long delays in logistics result in reporters(embeds)being stuck in one place and not producing stories as they ring up multi-thousand dollar a day expenses. The prices are not the fault of the reporters, the market demands are to blame. Either way, the sponsor journal is picking up the tab and feels the need to get some results.
It is not easy, but it is simple; grow some brass ones and get out in the field with Americas' finest. You won't regret it.
Air Show @MCAS Miramar in the a.m.: SEMPER-FI

I found the construction of the business regarding support for the troops and Bush's poll numbers quite odd and striking.

So, Bush claims that the troops have "tremendous support here at home," but the author of the article then tries to bely this claim by saying that the American people don't support the war?

Whatever happened to the idea (oft-touted by the Left) that one can oppose the war and still support the troops?? I take it that this is not, in fact, true----that when necessary, the media presumes that opposing the war is tantamount to not supporting the troops??

It's fairly clear from the glimpses we get from behind the scenes that this was a fairly scripted and choreographed affair, much in keeping with the faux "town hall" meetings and other such Potempkin photo-ops that BushCo indulges in. I find it sad that Bush is so incapable of fielding spontaneous questions in the way that Tony Blair can. He, of course, is used to a true "back and forth" by being brutally grilled by the House of Commons during PMQ every week. Bush would either wither or melt down completely under such circumstances. He's too insulated from reality.

'staged event' was when clinton's aides left a pile of rocks on a beach in the Normandy region so when he strolled by alone [except for the trailing camera and the entourage behind the camera]meditating on the bravery he understood or respected so little he camera]he could pause, bow his head, chew his lip thoughtfully and make a cross of the stones on the beach[for the ACLU to immediately have removed].
Running a military information session in a well prepared fashion is not staged in the sense the AP would like to fool us into thinking it is. Once again we ahve an out-of-touch media whose agenda is to rob the dignity of our soldiers, lie about this President, and to keep Americans as uninformed as possible about the GWOT.
I am all for a free press, even when they choose to be free of meaningful information. I am pleased the MSM have failed so far in regulating away the alternative media that is actually serving the information needs of Americans.

.

Re: "much in keeping with the faux "town hall" meetings and other such Potempkin photo-ops that BushCo indulges in"

When Kerry came to my little town in Minnesota for his "back porch" meeting with regular citizens before the election, the backyard was cordoned off for 3 blocks, the guests were all vetted by the Democratic party, and the questions were softballs submitted and approved before the cameras turned on.

So what? None of these photo-ops are ever very interesting.

If the media wanted to interview a bunch of soldiers in the field and get the real low-down, they've had a couple years to join them and write that big expose'. So where is it?

And what WERE the questions and the answers? Shouldn't somebody report that?

"I find it sad that Bush is so incapable of fielding spontaneous questions in the way that Tony Blair can. He, of course, is used to a true "back and forth" by being brutally grilled by the House of Commons during PMQ every week. Bush would either wither or melt down completely under such circumstances. He's too insulated from reality."

Besides completely missing the point that prepped questions can yield much more useful information than some junior-high pop quiz question format, you appear to not understand the difference in political background and roles between the American Presidency and the British Prime Minister. The American President, while always winning election after fighting his way through a party nomination process, functions as a chief executive within a balance-of-powers governance system counterbalancing the legislative branch. A chief executive of any corporation doesn't typically go toe-to-toe with corporate shareholders at the annual meeting but has a carefully scripted agenda that he/she wishes to push forward. The British Prime Minister, not fulfilling an independent chief executive role but functioning primarily as party chief (he/she is, after all, a member of Parliament as well), is a Parliamentary leader but also a peer, so the dynamic between him/her and Parliament is quite different.

This difference in dynamic is also reflected by the British opposition party's appointment of Shadow Ministers, which has no counterpart in the American federal government. From these traditions and structures, Americans expect their President's to have a certain dignity and, indeed, even aloofness from petty partisan sniping of the type often displayed in PMQ and would be dismayed and disgusted by any such displays by him.

Your beef is not with George Bush but with the American system of separation of powers.

"And what WERE the questions and the answers? Shouldn't somebody report that?"

No, that would destroy the narrative of Bush-the-master-liar-and-manipulator. I didn't pay $10 bucks for a ticket and another $10 for a bucket of popcorn and a soda only to have some bozo jump up and start screaming out alternative story lines. So kindly sit down before I call the usher. :)

"are their comments to the president pre-screened" was the question McClellan answered with a "no", Octavius.

I still haven't seen any evidence that there was screening of comments the troops were allowed to make to (or questions they could ask of) the President. So, what exactly was the point of your quoting that? If you have evidence that McClellan was somehow wrong or lying-mc-liarpantsing about it, present said evidence. Otherwise I'm left having to assume you didn't pay enough attention to what you were pasting and what McClellan actually said.

"Your beef is not with George Bush but with the American system of separation of powers."

No *********, my beef is with the obvious lack of mental agility that Bush repeatedly demonstrates. I only used Tony Blair as a comparative and suggested that his acuity and attention to detail has been honed to a fine edge in part by his experience fending for himself in the parliamentary system.

You seem to relish the idea of the president being an iconic figurehead, somewhat detatched and aloof in the manner of a corporate CEO, for reasons you imagine to be of "dignity" and maintaining independence within a "balance of powers governance." Oh please, give me a break. Any decent, competent CEO should be aware of what's going on in his/her company to the extent of being capable of addressing the specific concerns of corporate shareholders or private investors. Likewise, the president should be accountable to the voters and capable of responding to significant issues of the day.

Yep, I guess I am "missing the point that prepped questions can yield much more useful information than some junior-high pop quiz question format." I take issue with the way you've phrased this, but anyway... I happen to think that the way a person can take a "pop quiz question" and not only answer it, but then turn it to their own advantage or pivot off it to make the point they want to communicate is vastly more instructive than reciting (rather badly in this instance) from a script where everyone is simply acting.

[Please do not personally abuse other commenters (or the hosts) in your comments. Maintain a sense of decorum. --DaH]

“Running a military information session in a well prepared fashion is not staged in the sense the AP would like to fool us into thinking it is. Once again we ahve an out-of-touch media whose agenda is to rob the dignity of our soldiers, lie about this President, and to keep Americans as uninformed as possible about the GWOT.”

And "a military information session in a well prepared fashion" provides us with gems like this from George Bush:

"One of the, uh… you know, questions I have is about the pre-election operations. About, uh, whatchyou been doin’ an, er, what’s yer strategy and, an… how d’ya think it’s goin’ for to make sure that people have a chance to vote?"

Brilliant!

Do you honestly believe that the AP is out to intentionally fool you? Do you really think that they are trying to “rob the dignity of our soldiers.”? If so, I’d be highly curious to know why… What then is their agenda? These demonizing “blame the media” accusations are greatly exaggerated and widely overused. Of course there is bias and slanting in the reportage of events, but that’s more just human nature than some nefarious MSM plot hatched to “lie about this President” or “keep Americans as uniformed as possible.” Good grief, do you really believe that? Perhaps you figure that Rush Limbaugh is giving you the “straight goods” on the news. Yikes!

If anything it's phony baloney “events” (the fact that it’s referred to as such is pretty laughable in itself) such as Bush’s “teleconference” yesterday is what robs the soldiers of their dignity because they’re merely used as props and actors. As for the previous commenter who blasted Clinton for having rocks placed on Normandy Beach, well how about delivering a plastic turkey to the troops in Iraq? Wow, if that doesn’t speak volumes, I don’t know what does.

"As for the previous commenter who blasted Clinton for having rocks placed on Normandy Beach, well how about delivering a plastic turkey to the troops in Iraq? Wow, if that doesn’t speak volumes, I don’t know what does."

Your repetition of the "plastic turkey" myth does, in fact speak volumes. It doesn't say what you think it does, though.

Oh right, it's a "myth"... of course. This is from The Australian (amongst many others): "But it turns out that this turkey shoot — and here I use the term in its photographic sense — was a right stuff-up, because it has been revealed that the turkey wasn't a turkey. Well, not a real turkey. It was a prop turkey, a pretend turkey. Just as ketchup replaced blood for violent scenes in movies, and mashed potato substituted for ice cream in Happy Days (to prevent its melting under the studio lights), the President had taken a plastic turkey — one used for gourmet magazine shoots — to the mess hall."

I will allow you to extrapolate for yourself. To me, it speaks of the fakery and deception of this administration. The fact that it was a turkey involved on Bush's Baghdad Blitz simply makes it all the more poignant.

Dafydd:

Nice job on this post! Congrats on the link from Instapundit.

RedTory,

Keep pushing the plastic turkey myth. It shows 1) media incompetence and 2) your gullibility.

Or, you could research just a leetle bit more and stop making a fool out of yourself. You've already been given enough hints, but here's another:

http://patterico.com/2004/12/13/2463/fake-turkey-correction-issues/

Clue #2:

http://patterico.com/2004/07/11/1696/the-turkeys-at-the-inew-york-timesi/

Just a gentle suggestion that you stop while you're behind.

Red Tony, the President served real turkey, and picked up the prop turkey that tha army cooks used to decorate the hall for the photo.
Of course the liars in the MSM like to feed sheep like you the untrith he did not serve turkey so you all can bleat it out endlessly.
Organizing events is what any leader of any country worth beans does. The President of the US, despite MSM untruths to the contrary, is a busy guy. He wanted, and we got to see, a well prepared group of soldiers answer questions they were prepared to truthfully answer. That may conflict with the bigoted mythos some believe in about the Pres., but so be it.
By the way, if you are called on to answer quesiotns of the head of your company at a company wide event and are not prepared to answer the quesiotns well, you will discover what CLM means.

A minor quibble in my opinion. You seems to state this as being obvious but your refutation comes from some blogger with links to non-working sites. Yes, I should have done a "leetle" more research I guess. How about this:

---------------------------------------------

http://snipurl.com/39b2
President Bush's Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating.

In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey.

The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world.

But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.

---------------------------------------------

Okay, so now who is the FOOL? Bush pretended to serve up a decorative ornament (albeit "real"). So what? The principle is the same.

I watched the the video conference LIVE, and it was clear that the responses given by each soldier were NOT scripted. They were answering the questions TRUTHFULLY. Being prepared, knowing what questions were going to be asked of you, DOES NOT IMPLY your ANSWERS have scripted by those asking the questions!! Was there a rehearsal? YES! Is that wrong? NO. Does it mean the answers were scripted?

"Staff Sergeant David Smith-Barry, 42nd Infantry Division, one-on-one to CBS: “The truth is that everything that was said was meant to be said, though it may have sounded scripted in some places. Nerves kick in, for one. Two, everyone puts their thoughts together. You put it down, you go over and over it a hundred times."

Take it from someone who has worked in an industry that PREPS people on WHAT to say and HOW to say it-people being PREPPED on WHAT QUESTIONS will be asked, and to "take a deep breathe" before answering -is the NORM. Whether it be a press liason prepping a celeb, a politician, or a news producer on the phone prepping me as to what the opening question will be, doesn't matter, Prepping the troups in this manner does not mean that their answers were scripted... knowing what questions might be asked,and taking the time to do their homework so the answers reflect the truth DOES NOT IMPLY their ANSWERS have scripted by those asking the questions. I can tell when anyone is "reading something scripted" and when they answer questions that they have prepared for, but that come from the heart, and speak the truth.

The ENTIRE MSM has deliberately and intentionally skewed this story in yet another hapless attempt to support their inane and untrue belief that the President is trying to sell a war that nobody wants, and that he wants to create the image of "success on the ground". ************ - the only nobodies that don't want it are the MSM, leftwing liberals, Code Pink(o) ANSWER, the ACLU, and the Hollywood ******** I used to work with- and they are indeed NOBODIES.

[Warning: Language. --DaH]

HE DOESNT HAVE TO "CREATE" THE IMAGE OF SUCCESS ON THE GROUND. THE SUCCESSES ARE THERE! BUT THE LEFT WING MEDIA AND ITS GROUPIES CHOOSE TO IGNORE OUR SUCCESSES, AND INSTEAD LEND SUPPORT TO OUR ENEMIES: TERRORISTS WHO HAVE ISSUED A FATWA AGAINST AMERICANS, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, ISRAEL, MODERATE ARABS, AND EVEN THE ARAB COUNTRIES THAT ARE PRESENTLY LENDING SUPPORT TO THEM!!

Believe me the Clintons staged many "spontaneous" media events, and let's not forget the staged the question a soldier asked Sec.Rumsfeld - funny how the MSM was "strangely" silent about that staged moment!!!!

It was, no doubt, very exciting to be chosen to speak with the President in a live broadcast going out to millions of viewers. Even the most seasoned actor or speaker would be nervous and excited, so I know that the preparing for the kinds of questions the President was going to ask helped these soldiers get their nerves under control.

At the end of the day, their answers and insight proved to be spot on. Today we know that well over 60% of Iraqi's, including the Sunni's, came out to vote, and that the American and Iraqi forces worked together to succesfully secure the polling stations.

"it was impressive to me to see the cooperation and the communication that took place among the Iraqi forces. Along with the coalition's backing them, we'll have a very successful and effective referendum vote" Spot On!

"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" Again,Spot on!

"We've captured over 50 terrorists, as well as detained thousands of others that have ties to the insurgency. And I believe it is these accomplishments and the numerous accomplishments from our task force that will provide a safe and secure environment for the referendum vote." Yet Again, Spot On!

"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" And they sure did! ".. we can't wait to share in their success with them on Sunday."
I have no doubt they have been sharing in that success today!

The answers were indicative of what's been going on, and today bore witness to just exactly how truthful those alleged scripted answers were! Todays events in Iraq were not scripted...and that's THE event the MSM and left wing liberals should be talking about!

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Bush-staged-photo-op.wmv

For those claiming that this was not scripted, just rehearsed, go to 6:19.

Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary: "But if he gives us a question that's not something that we've scripted, ..."

And I'm sure Bush remembers meeting Master Sergeant Lombardo in New York 3 years ago, even though he screws up her rank when he addressed her (giving her a promotion to sergeant major).

I'll acknowledge that every administration slings a fair amount of ********, but this was just ameteur hour. That they expected me to believe that this was a spontaneous conversation is insulting. If things are going so smoothly, great. Then you can give the troops the questions in advance but let them prepare their own responses instead of making them read from a script. Then we could see a genuine response, and people who have the uncanny ability to determine whether someone is reading from a cue card might believe what they are hearing.

[Warning: Language. --DaH]

All right, commenters, LISTEN UP:

I'm getting tired of editing comments for language. You know what words you cannot write... so just don't write them, capice?

This sort of language stops now. The next comment that uses obscenities gets nuked with no appeal, no matter who writes it. (Not the commenter, just the comment.)

Thanks -- fight hard, but keep it clean. No eye gouging in the clinches, and don't pull the other boxer's boxer shorts down.

Dafydd

Dafydd said:

"I wonder whether he applies that same scorn to a certain fellow who was a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, the exact equivalent rank to "captain" in the Army or Marines: Lt. John F. Kerry."

Minor correction. Kerry was a Lieutenant, Junior Grade (o2), which is the equivalent to a 1st Lieutenant in the Army or Marines.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)