King of photo op

Hobbes · 06-12-2003 2:42pm #1

Bad enough mess with the 'mission accomplished' photo-op but appears he made another boo-boo with this..

Turns out the turkey he brought to the troops is about as real as the weapons as mass destruction.

sceptre · 06-12-2003 5:09pm

Originally posted by Hobbes
Turns out the turkey he brought to the troops is about as real as the weapons as mass destruction.

You mean that the Mossad were sure the turkey was hidden underground somewhere and Bush has sent thousands of troops to blow up villages in an attempt to flush it out?;)

conZ · 06-12-2003 5:17pm

Same Turkey?

sceptre · 06-12-2003 5:24pm

Originally posted by conZ
Same Turkey?

Different turkey. That one (as the thanksgiving mascot) gets life imprisonment on an open prison for turkeys who were the thanksiving mascot. Oh yeah, it's not plastic either.

gandalf · 06-12-2003 5:45pm

Naw they are definately before and after piccies.

The 2nd Piccie is the Turkey before it was "liberated" and the 1st one.....................

Poor old George Jnr really doesn't take a good photo now does he

Gandalf.

daveirl · 07-12-2003 12:03pm

This post has been deleted.

sovtek · 07-12-2003 3:16pm

Originally posted by Hobbes
Bad enough mess with the 'mission accomplished' photo-op but appears he made another boo-boo with this..

Turns out the turkey he brought to the troops is about as real as the weapons as mass destruction.

That's priceless...fake weapons...fake turkey...fake war on terror.
Is it just me and am I getting too jaded...but didn't some part of you just pray (to Allah or God or the Great Electron) for a Stinger attack on one of these idiots.

*Hint to Iraqi resistance...aim for anything two-tone blue and white....*

sovtek · 07-12-2003 3:19pm

Originally posted by daveirl
Is anyone following the other which is an even bigger cock-up? Part of one of the press releases that were issued by the White House said that Air Force One, while secretly flying to Iraq had been spotted by a BA flight.

You'd think fair enough sounds more than possible but it appears they lied.

So of course they had to come up with a new story - http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-usfly033568691dec03,0,3535588.story?coll=ny-news-print

I said jokingly to my friend that the next story was going to be "control tower denies talking to Air Force One!" and to even my utter amazment their is now a version 3 of the story!!!

Makes you wonder if they can be honest about ANYTHING.

But hey...I guess that's what you ask for when you put a bunch of non-functioning CEO's (two interchangeable terms really) in government.

Geromino · 07-12-2003 4:27pm

Originally posted by sovtek
Makes you wonder if they can be honest about ANYTHING.

But hey...I guess that's what you ask for when you put a bunch of non-functioning CEO's (two interchangeable terms really) in government.

Sovtek and Daveirl,
Tell me, if you were shipping a load of gold from point A to point B, would you 1) advtertize the route, 2) advertize the time, 3) advertize the security procautions, and 4) advertize the amount of gold being shipped. If you were in charge, I guess you would judging from you post.

On your previous point seriously, one could argue in your attempt as treason, Sovtek. If you feel that forceful about it, I do know the procedure in which you can renounce your citizenship. It is quite easy as long as you are not renouncing your citizenship based on avoiding taxes.

This post should have been in the political satire.

sovtek · 07-12-2003 4:43pm

Originally posted by Geromino
Sovtek and Daveirl,
Tell me, if you were shipping a load of gold from point A to point B, would you 1) advtertize the route, 2) advertize the time, 3) advertize the security procautions, and 4) advertize the amount of gold being shipped. If you were in charge, I guess you would judging from you post.

Seriously..what?

On your previous point seriously, one could argue in your attempt as treason, Sovtek. If you feel that forceful about it, I do know the procedure in which you can renounce your citizenship. It is quite easy as long as you are not renouncing your citizenship based on avoiding taxes.

This post should have been in the political satire.

Don't get your panties in a wad. Treason eh? Are you going to report my post to the Department of Homeland Security?
I wonder if sending 160,000 people to die (as well as kill tens of thousands of innocent people) for you and your buddies bank balance is treason.
Otherwise, I can say and dream whatever I want. Actions are different matter. And I will not be renouncing my citizenship any time soon.
But then there is the Declaration of Independence that reads...

"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

Victor · 07-12-2003 4:46pm

Originally posted by Geromino
On your previous point seriously, one could argue in your attempt as treason

Just which law would he be breaking? Who is he betraying?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=treason

trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sovereign

sov·er·eign ( P ) Pronunciation Key (svr-n, svrn)
n.
1. One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit, as: A king, queen, or other noble person who serves as chief of state; a ruler or monarch.
2. A national governing council or committee.
3. A nation that governs territory outside its borders.
4. A gold coin formerly used in Great Britain.

sceptre · 07-12-2003 5:02pm

Originally posted by Geromino
in your attempt as treason, Sovtek.

That's got to be one of the more idiotic things I've ever read here.

Do you live in the deep deep dark South then? Is criticising your own government an act of treason where you live?

Geromino · 07-12-2003 5:06pm

Originally posted by sovtek
Makes you wonder if they can be honest about ANYTHING.

But hey...I guess that's what you ask for when you put a bunch of non-functioning CEO's (two interchangeable terms really) in government.

Tell me this Sovtek and Daithl1, if you were to ship a load of gold from point A to point B, would you 1) advertize the route taken, 2) advertize the time for such shipment, 3) advertize the security precautions, and 4) advertize the load of gold being shipped. Judging from your posts, I guess that answer would be yes. But then again, only in Europe where a pop star dangling a child over the balcony is considered chic.

Sovtek, your first post could be loosely considered as treason. Now, if you feel that strongly about it, I can give you the procedure on how to renounce your citizenship as long as it is not to avoid taxes. That way, the charge could be reduced to criminal mischief, a minor offense.

Fake Turkey

I guess Hobbes et al. have never been in through a chow line on a military post before. You do not have whole turkeys to carve up as you please. You go through the chow line and served your designated portion. The whole trip was to serve those soldiers in Iraq on a very important holiday.

Release of the Turkey

This is another tradition of Thanksgiving, although it has little to do with the original Thanksgiving dinner on Plymoth Rock. This year marks the 56th anniversary of the first National Thanksgiving Turkey presentation. Though live Thanksgiving turkeys were presented intermittently to presidents since the Lincoln administration, the current event dates to 1947, when the first National Thanksgiving Turkey was presented to President Harry Truman. If you want more:
http://www.turkeyfed.org/press/conspr/stars.html

The farm is a exact replica of a working farm of the 1930's during the Great Depression. It is a teaching conservatory, not a zoo. Here is the link to Kidwell Farms: http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/parks/resources/kidwell-1.htm

sovtek · 07-12-2003 5:11pm

Originally posted by sceptre
Do you live in the deep deep dark South then? Is criticising your own government an act of treason where you live? Idiocy obviously isn't.

Actually I'm from the not so deep south.

Criticising the government isn't a treasones act YET, but methinks El Bush isn't done yet.

I'm quite sure that post got me flagged somewhere in Virginia or Diego Garcias.

Capt'n Midnight · 07-12-2003 5:47pm

Gold ? Oh you mean something Dense, Incapable of thought and is associated only with very rich people.

dathi1 · 07-12-2003 5:52pm

Tell me this Sovtek and Daithl1

?

Geromino · 07-12-2003 5:54pm

Originally posted by sovtek
Don't get your panties in a wad. Treason eh? Are you going to report my post to the Department of Homeland Security?
I wonder if sending 160,000 people to die (as well as kill tens of thousands of innocent people) for you and your buddies bank balance is treason.
Otherwise, I can say and dream whatever I want. Actions are different matter. And I will not be renouncing my citizenship any time soon.

Sovtek,
There is the right way to criticize and there is the wrong way to criticize. Your first post happen to be the wrong way to criticize. Putting a hint for certain groups to shoot down anything two tone and blue could cause innocents to get killed. There could be a two tone and blue single piston aircraft, twin engine aircraft, an Airbuss 340, or even a Boeing 777. That is the wrong way, Sovtek. Furthermore, there are limits to any freedom Sovtek. I cannot slander nor libel you, for instance, nor can you.

PS The Declaration of Independence has no legal nor Constitutional bearing. It is a seperate document that qualified the several states to break away from England.

Victor · 07-12-2003 5:55pm

Originally posted by Geromino
But then again, only in Europe where a pop star dangling a child over the balcony is considered chic.

I disagree with the word chic - "f***ing gobs****" was the attitude most people took. And wasn't it an American popstar.

mr_angry · 07-12-2003 6:18pm

Clearly the second pic is from a couple of years ago, when GWB was happily prepared to support and fund the Turkeys in their struggle for freedom against the terrible Russian chickens.

The first pic is then Bush demonstrating his supreme victory over the brutal Turkey dictatorship, which had gone unchallenged for too long.

bonkey · 07-12-2003 8:22pm

Originally posted by Geromino
Sovtek and Daveirl,
Tell me, if you were shipping a load of gold from point A to point B, would you 1) advtertize the route, 2) advertize the time, 3) advertize the security procautions, and 4) advertize the amount of gold being shipped. If you were in charge, I guess you would judging from you post.

I think that point being made was that having successfully transferred teh gold, you don't go about making up verifiably fake stories about how risky it was to try and gain some extra kudos for having done it.

I guess Hobbes et al. have never been in through a chow line on a military post before. You do not have whole turkeys to carve up as you please. You go through the chow line and served your designated portion. The whole trip was to serve those soldiers in Iraq on a very important holiday.

Again...you seem to be missing the point. Given that turkey is not served on a nice platter, who the hell was Bush posing for? If he served people going through the usual chow-line, then why not show it? Why show something that is - again - verifiably false, instead of what Bush allegedly went there for???

OK, if you read the various explanations which came out after the fact, it seems that the entire shot was just accidental, and that some photographer was lucky enough to catch this great pic at just the right moment (bit like the classic "closed binoculars" one). However, the question should then be asked....where are the pictures of Bush serving those soldiers in Iraq on a very important holiday (as you put it yourself)???

You can laugh it off as a funny incident, but there is a growing trend in the Bush Administration increasingly having to...ummm...refine its position on certain things as it becomes clear that their original position was a blatantly false one. The Turkey, the BA encounter, the "Mission Accomplished" banner, the "Made in America" boxes - these are the most recent gaffs.

However, as was pointed out in passing by someone else, this would appear to be a worrying trend...as we have also seen the administration refine its statements about WMDs, why the US went to war at all, and so on and so forth.

You may feel it belongs to satire, but the simple fact is that this is yet again an indication of just how important the truth would appear to be to the Bush Administration when compared to, say, public perception.

jc

07-12-2003 8:55pm

Just want to point out the following, without connecting myself in any way with the previous banter, but the news pictures that I saw on Bushes visit to Baghdad on the tv news bulletins that night did show him on the chow line or whatever it's called dishing out the portions to the troops.

mm

Victor · 07-12-2003 8:58pm

Hang on. There's another version of the picture with no turkey - are we sure it wasn't photoshopped in? (doubtful with the BBC, but who knows - note Bert is Evil photos).

And 90% of the turkey used by the US military over Thanksgiving was "turkey parts" as opposed to whole turkey (it was in some piece of fluff PR on how they started planning Thanksgiving about 6 months ago).

Hobbes · 07-12-2003 9:12pm

Originally posted by Geromino
I guess Hobbes et al. have never been in through a chow line on a military post before. You do not have whole turkeys to carve up as you please. You go through the chow line and served your designated portion. The whole trip was to serve those soldiers in Iraq on a very important holiday.

Your absolutly right. I haven't been, and if you bothered to read the story you would see the reporters agree with you, which makes the photo-op with a fake turkey all the more lame.

Geromino · 08-12-2003 12:13am

Originally posted by bonkey
I think that point being made was that having successfully transferred teh gold, you don't go about making up verifiably fake stories about how risky it was to try and gain some extra kudos for having done it.

When you are having the gold tracked by everyone and anyone, the accomplishment was keeping it a secret. It took fifteen security agencies to pull off the trip and shocked both Sen Clinton, who happen to be there at that time, and most others including the Presidents family up until or near the time of departure. Not to mention the bastion of White House correspondents who can accompany the President on every trip.

Again...you seem to be missing the point. Given that turkey is not served on a nice platter, who the hell was Bush posing for? If he served people going through the usual chow-line, then why not show it? Why show something that is - again - verifiably false, instead of what Bush allegedly went there for???

Newspapers will print pictures and stories in order to sell those newspapers, truth be damned. However, depending on whether you hate (figuratively of course) the President or not , then it all depends on the story line, now doesn't it. No one here acknowledges the great moral boost it did for the troops, regardless of your political stance. But that is another story and thread altogether.

OK, if you read the various explanations which came out after the fact, it seems that the entire shot was just accidental, and that some photographer was lucky enough to catch this great pic at just the right moment (bit like the classic "closed binoculars" one). However, the question should then be asked....where are the pictures of Bush serving those soldiers in Iraq on a very important holiday (as you put it yourself)???

See above statement.

Geromino · 08-12-2003 12:20am

Originally posted by Hobbes
Your absolutly right. I haven't been, and if you bothered to read the story you would see the reporters agree with you, which makes the photo-op with a fake turkey all the more lame.

Um you did not provide a news link with the picture, Hobbes, unless of course you mean the Guardian (which I don't read).

daveirl · 08-12-2003 12:31am

This post has been deleted.

sceptre · 08-12-2003 12:39am

unless of course you mean the Guardian (which I don't read).

:rolleyes:
Try this for size then

BBC. Warning: it uses some of the same words that the Guardian article uses so don't read it if you don't want to go blind or lose your soul.

Last few paragraphs of this are interesting too.

Lovely lovely turkey

Geromino · 08-12-2003 1:18am

Originally posted by daveirl
[Bemm... I never said they should do any of that. All I said is they shouldn't lie about what happened after the fact. Even right-wing nuts like Andrew Sullivan questioned the Bush administration on making this oops!!! [/B]

But what did they lie about? The fact that they were not there in Iraq? The fact that President Bush was going to bring enough bird to feed 600 troops? The fact how they went to Iraq? Even if that turkey was real, how many soldiers would a five or ten pound turkey serve. It would not serve 600. But then again, should the President have brought 35 turkeys to feed the 600 troops. Again, who cares about a fake turkey on a moral boosting trip. This is a non-story trumped up as a real story of truth.

bonkey · 08-12-2003 6:29am

Originally posted by Geromino
When you are having the gold tracked by everyone and anyone, the accomplishment was keeping it a secret. It took fifteen security agencies to pull off the trip and shocked both Sen Clinton, who happen to be there at that time, and most others including the Presidents family up until or near the time of departure. Not to mention the bastion of White House correspondents who can accompany the President on every trip.

You're still missing the point.

I'm aware what a major coup keeping this secret was. I'm aware of how risky it was.

What I don't understand is that rather than playing to this, the White House PR department feels it mecessary to make up stories to say "and look how nearly it all fell apart".

Putting it very simply - what do verifiable lies gain the White House???

Newspapers will print pictures and stories in order to sell those newspapers, truth be damned. However, depending on whether you hate (figuratively of course) the President or not , then it all depends on the story line, now doesn't it.

You show me a single news story with that picture in it - after it emerged that the picture was faked - where the point being made was "hey - who cares that they lied to us again....he's still a great guy", and I'll concede you have a point.

Every article I've seen has basically said either "this lie was an astute political move to gain in the polls, and it worked", or "this is yet another lie from the Bush Administration".

Given that you're such a man for asking for links from others, I'm sure you'll have no problems illustrating your point on how some media who don't hate the President (figuratively speaking of course) actually appluaded him for faking the picture?

Yes?

No one here acknowledges the great moral boost it did for the troops, regardless of your political stance. But that is another story and thread altogether.

Exactly - we're not discussing why he went to Iraq, and no-one saw fit to start a thread about it yet, so it most certainly is another story and thread. This thread is about the Bush Administration - once again - being economical with the truth when it comes to PR.

If you want to discuss the message that Bush sent to his troops - standing on the soil of a foreign country for just over 2.5 hours, having arrived in complete secrecy in the most secure plane in the world, and then having gone on to make up lies about how dangerous it was on the flight over (as opposed to on the ground), and willfully backing an image of "spreading cheer" which every single troop on the ground will know from a glance was staged - you go right ahead.

Me, I'd question the morale boost that has given, as opposed to, say, a straight-up-front "yes, we put a lot of effort into doing this for the troops, and it all went according to plan, and it was all for them because they are the ones taking the real risks, and we knew theyd keep us safe, and here's a shot of the President scooping mash onto someone's plate wearing a serving-boy jacket" type of statement.

I think Bush began with the best of intentions, and someone - he and/or his PR department - decided that the morale boost could be coupled with some great poll-boosting stuff, and the lies and manipulations of the media have now overtaken any meaningful message he could have sent.

Then again, I am neither American nor in American (or Iraq), so perhaps I'm misjudging how critical you (as a nation) are of the honesty and integrity of the people who run your country, or of those who present them to the public (i.e. your media and/or the White House PR staff).

jc

Hobbes · 08-12-2003 11:42am

Originally posted by Geromino
Again, who cares about a fake turkey on a moral boosting trip. This is a non-story trumped up as a real story of truth.

Oops forgot the link but someone else has posted one.

moral boosting? For a select few who were allowed see Bush, what about the ones who were kept outside the airport not allowed to eat until he left? o_O

It is like he does photo ops with absolute no thought behind what he is doing. Just creating his little photo album for the history books.

Geromino · 08-12-2003 2:30pm

Originally posted by bonkey

You're still missing the point.

I'm aware what a major coup keeping this secret was. I'm aware of how risky it was.

What I don't understand is that rather than playing to this, the White House PR department feels it mecessary to make up stories to say "and look how nearly it all fell apart".

Putting it very simply - what do verifiable lies gain the White House???[/B]

When you have to have something so secret in which the "cargo" is figuratively, like the largest gold shipment to be made, a single leak could pose that shipment in danger. And when it comes to the President, security is everything. Hence, a single leak on the trip, while on route or before, was the upmost importance. And if the leak occured, then this would have never been reported, or we may have well had another lie from the administration. The real story here is not about the President's trip, but how well, for once, the security agencies worked together with no one having a personal agenda to gain. It was not the picture of the faked turkey

You show me a single news story with that picture in it - after it emerged that the picture was faked - where the point being made was "hey - who cares that they lied to us again....he's still a great guy", and I'll concede you have a point.

Every article I've seen has basically said either "this lie was an astute political move to gain in the polls, and it worked", or "this is yet another lie from the Bush Administration".

Given that you're such a man for asking for links from others, I'm sure you'll have no problems illustrating your point on how some media who don't hate the President (figuratively speaking of course) actually appluaded him for faking the picture?

Yes?

My whole point was the faked turkey was basically a non-story to begin with. Let me give you another example, there have been news reports from newsmax (a source that I do not read by the way) claiming Sen Clinton made treasonous statements. The "truth" was she was making an observation that the battle is not over and it is unclear of the outcome (I am paraphrasing of course). It might shock you that I agree with this assessment and many foreign affairs experts have also agreed on that assumption. But again, it is a non-story to begin with and given its proper place in file 13.

Exactly - we're not discussing why he went to Iraq, and no-one saw fit to start a thread about it yet, so it most certainly is another story and thread. This thread is about the Bush Administration - once again - being economical with the truth when it comes to PR.

If you want to discuss the message that Bush sent to his troops - standing on the soil of a foreign country for just over 2.5 hours, having arrived in complete secrecy in the most secure plane in the world, and then having gone on to make up lies about how dangerous it was on the flight over (as opposed to on the ground), and willfully backing an image of "spreading cheer" which every single troop on the ground will know from a glance was staged - you go right ahead.

Me, I'd question the morale boost that has given, as opposed to, say, a straight-up-front "yes, we put a lot of effort into doing this for the troops, and it all went according to plan, and it was all for them because they are the ones taking the real risks, and we knew theyd keep us safe, and here's a shot of the President scooping mash onto someone's plate wearing a serving-boy jacket" type of statement.

I think Bush began with the best of intentions, and someone - he and/or his PR department - decided that the morale boost could be coupled with some great poll-boosting stuff, and the lies and manipulations of the media have now overtaken any meaningful message he could have sent.

Then again, I am neither American nor in American (or Iraq), so perhaps I'm misjudging how critical you (as a nation) are of the honesty and integrity of the people who run your country, or of those who present them to the public (i.e. your media and/or the White House PR staff).

jc

Bonkey, the whole trip was for morale boost of the troops. However, I wonder if the media is hyping this story up since they were snubbed. Perhaps their intentions are only that to potray themselves as "truth" which I hardly will agree. I have made known my disdain for newspapers, of any nation, and their lack of investigative reporting. In my view, any newspaper reporter is deemed a "useful idiot."

Geromino · 08-12-2003 2:47pm

Originally posted by Hobbes
Oops forgot the link but someone else has posted one.

moral boosting? For a select few who were allowed see Bush, what about the ones who were kept outside the airport not allowed to eat until he left? o_O

It is like he does photo ops with absolute no thought behind what he is doing. Just creating his little photo album for the history books.

The answer to your first question is a military operations one. Now, you would not want to have all US personell, several thousand in an area which you could only seat 600. Quarters would have been very cramped. However, not even Bob Hope and the USO tours could see all US personell, whether in a war zone or not.

On the second question, the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots. The picture, as Bonkey stated, was taken at a particular time. It was, no doubt, purchased by various newspapers for their various bylines and hence, the story came into being. Their were only a select few journalists who accompanied the President on the trip and hence where the pictures were taken, but this is another shining example of media hystieria on a non-news story.

Victor · 08-12-2003 2:51pm

Originally posted by Geromino
On the second question, the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots.

Actually the president has a permanent official photographer plus whatever screened journos / photographers were allowed along.

Hobbes · 08-12-2003 3:10pm

Originally posted by Geromino
The answer to your first question is a military operations one. Now, you would not want to have all US personell, several thousand in an area which you could only seat 600.

True, or you could actually allow the people who were supposed to be there at that time, rather then a select hand picked few who agree with Bush.

the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots.

Actually he does. As Victor has already pointed out, and those reporters who ask the questions that people should really be asking don't get invited back to press conferences again (or pushed right to the back where they can't ask the president something).

bonkey · 08-12-2003 6:39pm

Originally posted by Geromino
When you have to have something so secret in which the "cargo" is figuratively, like the largest gold shipment to be made, a single leak could pose that shipment in danger.

Geromino...I've got all that. The gold is in the bank, secure, and nothing happened. OK....we're both agreed....we're talking about after the fact.

I'm asking what gain it is to anyone to issue verifiably false statements about what happened.

I'll clarify again.....I am not asking why they kept it secret in the first place, but why they lied about how risky it was after the fact. It was risky enough...but obviously lacking in glamour, so they "sexed it up" the story a bit in order to make it more newsworthy.

The real story here is not about the President's trip, but how well, for once, the security agencies worked together with no one having a personal agenda to gain. It was not the picture of the faked turkey

Actually - not so. Thats what the real story should have been, but the White House were too quick to try and capitalise on it with yet more lies which has overshadowed all of it.

Bonkey, the whole trip was for morale boost of the troops.

It should have been, yes. It may have been intended to be. But it no longer is. Just as the welcoming back home of a warship from active duty is supposed to be about welcoming the troops back home, but that led to the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco - yet more falsification by the White House which overshadowed the entire event.

The thing is that I could accept government "white lies" which were taken for reasons of national security. Thus, I would be in no way critical of the White House having said "he's at home at his ranch, calling the troops in Iraq and spending Thanksgiving with his family" (which apparently they did say) while Bush was on his way to/from Iraq. Thats fair enough.

What I cannot accept is the validity of these all-too-frequent PR-based lies which the White House keeps getting caught for. And thats what they are - PR-based lies. Almost evrey single one of them which was a photo-op has firstly been hailed as a "defining image of the presidency", and then shown to be fake.

That is nothing more than an attempt to boost the President's popularity coming up to an election through the use of lies and media manipulation.

However, I wonder if the media is hyping this story up since they were snubbed.

They weren't snubbed. Bush travelled with his usual contingent from the press-pool, who have a "round-robin" sharing agreement amongst themselves so that they all get the pictures from every event without the need to have a camerman etc. from every major station with the Pres at all times. The pictures from Iraq, for example, came from Fox. I saw them on CNN who had to wait the usual handful of minutes because thats the "lead time" that whoever owns the camera on any given day typically gets.

I have made known my disdain for newspapers, of any nation, and their lack of investigative reporting. In my view, any newspaper reporter is deemed a "useful idiot."

I find it so funny that you are so dismissive of the newsies, and yet see nothing at all noteworthy in the fact that your government lies to you on a regular basis - particularly, it would seem, when it comes to a matter of swaying public opinion towards re-electing them or just plain making the President a bit more popular.

As a comparison : the Russian elections just held were slated - not for being improperly held, but because the ruling powers gave themselves unfair access to the state-run media, whilst limiting the access of the opposition parties. Manipulation of the media is enough to have the electoral watchdogs out decrying the elections already as improper and a step backwards.

You, on the other hand, are saying that its perfectly acceptable - and non-newsworthy - for the President, in an election year to stage these type of popularity-grabbing camera-moments through the use of lies....and that in fact its the media's fault for actually making a story out of it when they say "we were lied to by our President and his staff....again".

I find that comparison interesting....you see it as percectly acceptable for Bush and his PR-bods to manipulate the media through lies approaching an election, but not for the media to highlight those lies as something noteworthy. Electoral watchdogs, on the other hand, see any gross media manipulation as sufficient grounds to effectively condemn electoral results as being improper.

I know who I side with.....

jc

Geromino · 11-12-2003 3:37am

Originally posted by Victor
Actually the president has a permanent official photographer plus whatever screened journos / photographers were allowed along.

The photographer works for the white house, not the President. However, the presidend does select an individual who in turn is under the auspices of the press secretary. Furthermore, when the pictures are taken, it is not exactly on the scale of GQ magazine. The photographer is free to take the pictures of the president, normaly two or three rolls at a time per engagement.

Geromino · 11-12-2003 3:54am

Originally posted by Hobbes
True, or you could actually allow the people who were supposed to be there at that time, rather then a select hand picked few who agree with Bush.

Military personell cannot openly support, campaign, or advertise overtly any presidential candidate or current president. Military personell cannot openly criticize the president either. This has to do with the chain of command doctrine. The President, under the Articles of the Constitution, is the commander-in-chief. Hence, the 600 were there by mere coincidence. To make you feel better, two privates (I belieive) who were there expressed their concern about security issues to a couple of journalists.

Actually he does. As Victor has already pointed out, and those reporters who ask the questions that people should really be asking don't get invited back to press conferences again (or pushed right to the back where they can't ask the president something).

They are called the White House Press Corp. There is a process in which one gets their creditials and accompany the President on all overseas (unless security becomes a concern) trips. Second, the White House Correspondents Association generally polices its own members. Those who do not adhere to the rules generally are left out of the loop by the association, not the White House.

Hobbes · 11-12-2003 9:14am

Originally posted by Geromino
Military personell cannot openly support, campaign, or advertise overtly any presidential candidate or current president.

I am not talking about letting people go see the president (although I am sure there were some pissed off over it). He held up operations while his visit went on and also had people waiting for thier food which is a bit ironic when he is supposed to bringing food to the troops (which he didn't do either).

Geromino · 11-12-2003 12:22pm

Originally posted by bonkey
Geromino...I've got all that. The gold is in the bank, secure, and nothing happened. OK....we're both agreed....we're talking about after the fact.

I'm asking what gain it is to anyone to issue verifiably false statements about what happened.

I'll clarify again.....I am not asking why they kept it secret in the first place, but why they lied about how risky it was after the fact. It was risky enough...but obviously lacking in glamour, so they "sexed it up" the story a bit in order to make it more newsworthy.

But what did they lie about Bonkey, specifically? Everybody keeps saying that President Bush lied (on this specific issue is what I am only addressing at the time being), but no one has really put a fingure on it. If it is the three "news stories" about the BA flight encounter, one will notice several things. First, the newspaper reporter names "Bush officials" as saying this or that. If one has spoken to a Bush official, then a name should appear. More likely, it was probably a low level employee who spoke on something in which he/she knew nothing about. Another indication is the "White House said" this or that. Again, the same principle applies. If the white house said something officially, it would have come from a high level Bush official, or more precisely, the White House Press Secretary or its immideate staff. But again, no names. If it was unofficial, it then should have been designated so. However, none of the journalists asked BA for a comment, at least what I saw from the links. And the other notification is the followup stories on the BA flight. Once a newspaper releases a story that alleges the White House said something and it is not true, then the White House must respond to those reports. But again, officials are never recognized officially or unofficially nearly all the time. It is those sublte details that can distinquish between what is bull and what is not. The perception of the truth seems to be the Admin lied; however, the reality of the story is that no one really knows because the flight data recorder will not be taken off the plane and analyzed.

Actually - not so. Thats what the real story should have been, but the White House were too quick to try and capitalise on it with yet more lies which has overshadowed all of it.

It has been the story for about three days in the media outlests here as well as several security think tanks as well.

QUOTE]It should have been, yes. It may have been intended to be. But it no longer is. Just as the welcoming back home of a warship from active duty is supposed to be about welcoming the troops back home, but that led to the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco - yet more falsification by the White House which overshadowed the entire event.

The thing is that I could accept government "white lies" which were taken for reasons of national security. Thus, I would be in no way critical of the White House having said "he's at home at his ranch, calling the troops in Iraq and spending Thanksgiving with his family" (which apparently they did say) while Bush was on his way to/from Iraq. Thats fair enough.

What I cannot accept is the validity of these all-too-frequent PR-based lies which the White House keeps getting caught for. And thats what they are - PR-based lies. Almost evrey single one of them which was a photo-op has firstly been hailed as a "defining image of the presidency", and then shown to be fake.

That is nothing more than an attempt to boost the President's popularity coming up to an election through the use of lies and media manipulation.

They weren't snubbed. Bush travelled with his usual contingent from the press-pool, who have a "round-robin" sharing agreement amongst themselves so that they all get the pictures from every event without the need to have a camerman etc. from every major station with the Pres at all times. The pictures from Iraq, for example, came from Fox. I saw them on CNN who had to wait the usual handful of minutes because thats the "lead time" that whoever owns the camera on any given day typically gets.[/QUOTE]

Bonkey, the reality of the trip was to boost morale. The fake turkey picture is a non-story. It was a symbol of home and nothing more. The hoopla about the fake turkey shows the lack integrity by the news media (this includes Fox by the way). The distraction from the news media has been the fake turkey and the so called BA flight encounter which some groups now perceive as "lying." Again, look at the beginning of my reply and you will see how the media creates the story. Once a story is released, whatever the intended purpose of the journalist, it gets bought and used through the by-line. This is how newspapers work. The investigative reporters at the "local" newspaper then take the general by-line, make a few calls, take some notes, sometimes make some things up, and then you have a similar story.

I find it so funny that you are so dismissive of the newsies, and yet see nothing at all noteworthy in the fact that your government lies to you on a regular basis - particularly, it would seem, when it comes to a matter of swaying public opinion towards re-electing them or just plain making the President a bit more popular.

As a comparison : the Russian elections just held were slated - not for being improperly held, but because the ruling powers gave themselves unfair access to the state-run media, whilst limiting the access of the opposition parties. Manipulation of the media is enough to have the electoral watchdogs out decrying the elections already as improper and a step backwards.

You, on the other hand, are saying that its perfectly acceptable - and non-newsworthy - for the President, in an election year to stage these type of popularity-grabbing camera-moments through the use of lies....and that in fact its the media's fault for actually making a story out of it when they say "we were lied to by our President and his staff....again".

I find that comparison interesting....you see it as percectly acceptable for Bush and his PR-bods to manipulate the media through lies approaching an election, but not for the media to highlight those lies as something noteworthy. Electoral watchdogs, on the other hand, see any gross media manipulation as sufficient grounds to effectively condemn electoral results as being improper.

I know who I side with.....

jc

Bonkey, I have never stated, nor have I suggested, nor have I acknowledged that this is a publicity stunt. The publicity stunt is coming from the news media, not the admin, in this particular case. The reality is Bonkey is that you have a perception of what happened and I have a different perception of what happened. The question becomes who is right? The answer might shock you Bonkey: we are both right because of our perceptions.

Geromino · 11-12-2003 12:36pm

Originally posted by Hobbes
I am not talking about letting people go see the president (although I am sure there were some pissed off over it). He held up operations while his visit went on and also had people waiting for thier food which is a bit ironic when he is supposed to bringing food to the troops (which he didn't do either).

No Hobbes. Having several hundred troops in a dining hall and waiting for the President for about an Hour does not hold up essential military operations. Military experts will agree, unanimously, on this. Furthermore, the President was not bringing food to the troops. That is what the chow line was for, Hobbes. And as one other poster pointed out, there were pictures of President Bush serving the troops on the chow line. You are reaching for the stars on this one Hobbes.

daveirl · 11-12-2003 7:47pm

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes · 12-12-2003 2:34pm

Originally posted by Geromino
No Hobbes. Having several hundred troops in a dining hall and waiting for the President for about an Hour does not hold up essential military operations.

He was holding up people from eating at thier set time (hence the irony of 'bringing food to the troops'). He also held up airport operations and at least one commander of a unit lodged a complaint of it putting his men in danger.

And as one other poster pointed out, there were pictures of President Bush serving the troops on the chow line. [/B]

Yes Man mentions he did that as well but to point out what Bonkey already said...

If he served people going through the usual chow-line, then why not show it? Why show something that is - again - verifiably false, instead of what Bush allegedly went there for???

bonkey · 12-12-2003 2:46pm

I think Geromino's line, Hobbes, seems to be that this was - in fact - not something at all engineered by the White House, but rather a non-story blown out of all proportion....typically by White House-hating* media who will print anything to embarrass the President.

jc

* this would apparently include that well-known establishment-hating Fox, who's team it was who accompanied the Pres on this particular trip.

Geromino · 13-12-2003 2:45pm

Originally posted by bonkey
I think Geromino's line, Hobbes, seems to be that this was - in fact - not something at all engineered by the White House, but rather a non-story blown out of all proportion....typically by White House-hating* media who will print anything to embarrass the President.

jc

* this would apparently include that well-known establishment-hating Fox, who's team it was who accompanied the Pres on this particular trip.

Bonkey,
The first part of your post was correct but the second part (generalization of "White House hating) was off the mark. Although there are some news organizations, because of their political philosophy, would print anything to embarrass the current, or any, president, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that newsmedia are "usefull idiots." They will only print what will sell newspapers or get viewers tuned in (video media). This answers your question why newspapers did not print a picture of President Bush serving the troops. Quite frankly, it will not sell newspapers unless there was a unique angle to tell the story.

To Hobbes,
It was not holding up essential operations. Unless you have the entire information at hand (situational reports from the various units), then all you are doing is blowing smoke.

bonkey · 13-12-2003 3:34pm

Originally posted by Geromino
Although there are some news organizations, because of their political philosophy, would print anything to embarrass the current, or any, president, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that newsmedia are "usefull idiots."

I guess I misinterpreted your previous statement :

However, depending on whether you hate (figuratively of course) the President or not , then it all depends on the story line, now doesn't it

I read that to mean that anyone who used this story to level criticism at the President and his office in general was doing so because of hate (figuratively speaking)....

Put another way, the statement implies that critical story-lines would be levelled out of hate, while less critical (but equally sensationalist) ones would be a sign of "lack of hate", and would just be general media overhype....and that the line taken would be dependant on the existence (and presumably magnitude) of this figurative hatred.

Given that this is not what you meant, maybe you could explain what you did mean?

jc

bonkey · 13-12-2003 3:43pm

To Hobbes,
It was not holding up essential operations. Unless you have the entire information at hand (situational reports from the various units), then all you are doing is blowing smoke.

I guess one could equally say that unless you have the entire information at hand, your first sentence is equally as unfounded as Hobbes' claim is. Each of you is simply choosing which media to believe.

The Whitehouse no doubt say "no, it didn't cause any upset", and (although linkless) Hobbes points out that at least one complaint about ensuing endangerment was lodged....

So who do we trust? Was the captain lodging his report that he was endangered simply acting out of some personal motivation? Was it just more President-critical media hype - overblowing an event out of proportion? Or perhaps the Whitehouse line (or wherever it came from) that nothing was delayed, endangered, etc. etc. etc. is a revision of the truth (once more), and that "none" really means "very little".

I'd be inclined to say that the complaint was lodged, and that delays/endangerment did occur to at least some small degree.

However, I would not be too concerned or critical about it either - the last thing any US President is going to knowingly do is risk getting his name in the headlines as being responsible for a FUBARed op (with casualties or even fatalaties ensuing) as a result of a morale-boosting attempt.

jc

Victor · 13-12-2003 10:25pm

[more bush bashing*]Apparently he actually served potatoes, not turkey, it wouldn't go down well that most of hte turkey served was turkey pieces, not real turkey[/more bush bashing]

* bush bashing has no sexual connotations

Geromino · 14-12-2003 4:27pm

Originally posted by bonkey
I guess I misinterpreted your previous statement :

I read that to mean that anyone who used this story to level criticism at the President and his office in general was doing so because of hate (figuratively speaking)....

Put another way, the statement implies that critical story-lines would be levelled out of hate, while less critical (but equally sensationalist) ones would be a sign of "lack of hate", and would just be general media overhype....and that the line taken would be dependant on the existence (and presumably magnitude) of this figurative hatred.

Given that this is not what you meant, maybe you could explain what you did mean?

jc

Bonkey, you are making an assumption that it was a critique of the Bush Admin. I am simply stating it was not a critique but sensational journalism. If you read the story, you will see the journalist's references as "White House officials sad this;" "White House officials said that;" "Bush officials said this;" and "Bush officials said that." Would you like to know who precisely make those comments? Was it the janitor, an intern, or someone who actually makes some decisions or had access to the knowledge. Or was it done anonymously? If anonymously, then it should have been stated? These question are essential when reading any newstory from any source. This is how I read newstories and have drawn the conclusion of "useful idiots." This is my point on the news articles.

bonkey · 14-12-2003 5:26pm

Originally posted by Geromino
Bonkey, you are making an assumption that it was a critique of the Bush Admin.

No, I'm not.

I'm asking what you meant when you said that those who hated the President would be pitch the story in a certain way - being critical of him.

I'm not making any assumption...nor referring to any single, specific report or article.

I'm asking what you meant if not that those who print critical articles based on this event do so because they hate the President, and (presumably) would have printed a less critical (although equally sensational) article if they didn't hate him.

If thats what you meant, and I can produce any Fox article which is critical of Bush over this event, then surely it is because Fox hate the President.

If thats not what you meant - which now seems to be the case - then perhaps you could explain what you meant by the comment.

jc

Geromino · 19-12-2003 2:04pm

Originally posted by bonkey
No, I'm not.

I'm asking what you meant when you said that those who hated the President would be pitch the story in a certain way - being critical of him.

I'm not making any assumption...nor referring to any single, specific report or article.

I'm asking what you meant if not that those who print critical articles based on this event do so because they hate the President, and (presumably) would have printed a less critical (although equally sensational) article if they didn't hate him.

If thats what you meant, and I can produce any Fox article which is critical of Bush over this event, then surely it is because Fox hate the President.

If thats not what you meant - which now seems to be the case - then perhaps you could explain what you meant by the comment.

jc

Bonkey,
There is an adage that states believe in nothing what you hear and only half what you read, or is it the other way around. Look at the article and tell me which (and I mean specifically) "Bush official" acknowledged what the journalist was stating/witing/thinking. The fact is, you nor I nor anyone else, except for the aurthor, can, that is if he ever talked to one in the first place. Now, let us take a look at newspapers. As I have stated, newspapers will buy the copyright stories from the authors and print them, and in most cases without checking the facts. And when you cannot determine who specifically said what or why, then the article is not deemed no more valuable than fly spit.

TomF · 11-07-2004 12:05pm

This appeared in the news today. It's too bad it had to be printed in small type, probably at the bottom of an inside page:

"Corrections

"Published: July 11, 2004
...
"Week in Review,

"An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake."

http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html

Maybe I haven't been paying close attention, but this is the first I have heard that the "fake" turkey was real. If you read through this thread from the beginning, you will see several frequent posters who took the bait of "the fake turkey story" -- hook, line and sinker.

Isn't the Internet wonderful? It lets us remember what people said and months later when we learn that what they said was incorrect we can call up those memories and examine them in light of the facts.

King of photo op

Comments