Monday, October 17, 2005

Administration Coached Troops On What To Say To Bush, Then Lied About It

President Bush's teleconference Thursday with U.S. troops in Tikrit, tied to Saturday's vote on the new Iraqi constitution, was far from spontaneous.

It turns out that the teleconference was actually the latest example of the Bush Administration pre-screening questioners to create an event as staged as a Broadway show. As with other "town hall" meetings here in the U.S., it's clear the Bush Administration only wants to feign reality -- just in case the real thing proves to be too difficult.

How do we know about the "Tikrit deceit"? Because reporters caught the administration in the act.

Allison Barber, deputy assistant to the Secretary of Defense for internal communication, in a tape that aired on CNN, is seen discussing with troops questions that had been "drilled through today."

Worse, no one apparently told White House spokesman Scott McClellan that Barber had been caught on tape. Or more likely, McClellan knew, but chose to create one of those famous "alternate universes" during a second press briefing that day, when he continued to insist no pre-screening had occurred.

Let's take you step-by-step through the "Tikrit deceit":

STEP ONE: Lie at the White House press briefing.

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

MCCLELLAN: No.

Q: Not at all?

MCCLELLAN: This is a back-and-forth.

-- White House press briefing, Oct. 13

STEP TWO: Barber is caught on tape.

"So here’s what you to be prepared for, Captain Kennedy, is that the president is going to ask some questions. He may ask all six of them, he may ask three of them. He might have such a great time talking to you, he might come up with some new questions. So what we want to be prepared for is to not stutter. So if there’s a question that the president comes up with that we haven’t drilled through today, then I’m expecting the microphone to go right back to you, Captain Kennedy, and you to handle [it]."

-- Barber, speaking to troops, Oct. 13

"The soldiers, nine U.S. men and one U.S. woman, plus an Iraqi, had been tipped off in advance about the questions in the highly-scripted event. Allison Barber, deputy assistant to the Secretary of Defense for internal communication, could be heard asking one soldier before the start of the event, 'Who are we going to give that [question] to?'"

-- Official pool report, Oct. 13

STEP THREE: Play dumb.

Q Scott, why did the administration feel it was necessary to coach the soldiers that the President talked to this morning in Iraq?

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, I don't know what you're suggesting.

Q Well, they discussed the questions ahead of time. They were told exactly what the President would ask, and they were coached, in terms of who would answer what question, and how they would pass the microphone.

McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that what our troops were saying was not sincere, or what they said was not their own thoughts?

Q Nothing at all. I'm just asking why it was necessary to coach them.

McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the event earlier today, the event was set up to highlight an important milestone in Iraq's history, and to give the President an opportunity to, once again, express our appreciation for all that our troops are doing when it comes to defending freedom, and their courage and their sacrifice. And this is a satellite feed, as you are aware, and there are always technological challenges involved when you're talking with troops on a satellite feed like this. And I think that we worked very closely with the Department of Defense to coordinate this event. And I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect.

Q But we asked you specifically this morning if there would be any screening of questions or if they were being told in any way what they should say or do, and you indicated no.

McCLELLAN: I don't think that's what the question was earlier today. I think the question earlier today was asking if they could ask whatever they want, and I said, of course, the President was -- and you saw --

Q And I asked if they were pre-screened.

McCLELLAN: You saw earlier today the President was trying to engage in a back-and-forth with the troops. And I think it was very powerful what Lieutenant Murphy was saying at the end of that conversation, when he was talking about what was going on in January, how the American troops and coalition forces were in the lead when it came to providing security for the upcoming election, an election where more than eight million Iraqis showed up and voted. It was a great success.

And he talked about how this time, when we had the preparations for the upcoming referendum this Saturday, you have Iraqi forces that are in the lead, and the Iraqi forces are the ones that are doing the planning and preparing and taking the lead to provide for their own security as they get ready to cast their ballots again.

Q But I also asked this morning, were they being told by their commanders what to say or what to do, and you indicated, no. Was there any prescreening of --

McCLELLAN: I'm not aware of any such -- any such activities that were being undertaken. We coordinated closely with the Department of Defense. You can ask if there was any additional things that they did. But we work very closely with them to coordinate these events, and the troops can ask the President whatever they want. They've always been welcome to do that.

-- Press briefing later in the day, Oct. 13

***

It's all pretty familiar territory for the administration, actually.

Some Bush apologists might say that the Tikrit deceit occurred because of a fear that someone would ask a politically embarrassing question, given the mounting death toll in Iraq, and the possibility that the U.S.-led troops will be fighting the insurgency for the rest of this decade, and possibly beyond.

But the truth is, this sort of deceit was going on long before Bush's popularity tanked to new lows. This administration has always chosen "alternate universes" instead of dealing with the potential embarrassment of a pointed, but very real question from a disappointed, frustrated or (gasp!) liberal audience member.

During Bush's tour of "town hall meetings" to push Social Security privatization, it was learned that the administration not only chose to have a hand-picked audience listening to a carefully tailored message, but it also wants hand-picked types of people to ask the right questions to help sell that carefully tailored message.

We know this because, again, the administration got caught in the act.

A memo, circulated among Women Impacting Public Policy, illustrated the lengths to which the White House would go to create the right image.

"President Bush will be in Rochester, N.Y., for an upcoming event and has called on WIPP for help," said the memo to New York-area members, which was leaked to the Los Angeles Times for a May 20 story.

The memo went on to solicit several types of people, including a young worker who "knows that [Social Security] could run out before they retire," a young couple with children who like "the idea of leaving something behind to the family" and a single parent who believes Bush's proposal for individual investment accounts "would provide more retirement options and security" than the current system. These people, all to be under the age of 29, would then be called upon by the President, to lob softball questions representing various arguments Bush has been making to sell privatization to younger voters.

WIPP also helped find questioners for a May 19 Milwaukee event. That led to this exchange, recorded by the Times, between a hand-picked questioner and Bush:

"You got any thoughts about Social Security?" Bush asked 22-year-old Concordia University senior Christy Paavola, one of five younger workers who appeared on stage with him at the Milwaukee Art Museum.

"Yes," Paavola said. "I don't think it's going to be there when I retire, which is really scary."

Many young people, the president commented, think they are paying into a retirement system that will never pay them back.

He asked Paavola: "Got anything else you want to say?"

"I really like the idea of personal savings accounts," Paavola said.

"You did a heck of a job," Bush told her. "You deserve an A."

***

The administration got caught then, just as it got caught by the General Accounting Office found that the administration paid journalists and created other forms of "covert propaganda" in violation of "governmentwide" anti-propaganda rules -- to tout Medicare and Education programs.

But old habits die hard. And until the American people demand a checks-and-balances occur -- call their Congressman or Senator and say that they will not tolerate such deceit and propaganda in a democratic society -- the administration will, obviously, repeat such actions unabated.

In their "alternate universe," they aren't doing anything wrong.

26 Comments:

Anonymous Ed Dantes said...

Okay, so the administration got caught being the USA's biggest cheerleader. Shocking. With Liberal rags like the New York Times and LA Times taking advantage of every chance they can to bash this great country, I can't blame Bush for trying to put a positive spin on the fact that there are 140,000 soldiers fighting to defend us. Question to JABBS' "elite thinkers": Do you think the U.S. would have won World War II if the New York Times printed back then the kind of seditions crap it spews out on a daily basis nowadays? Anyone who answers yes, should be arrested.

11:47 AM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Ed, no one is talking about putting "a positive spin" on things.

This is wholesale deceit. Do you like that your government is lying to you in the name of freedom and democracy? Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

And it's not "liberal rags" that are finding fault with the administration. It's the non-partisan government watchdog, the GAO. If you want to blame newspapers for printing facts, then again I ask, is that your idea of living in freedom and democracy?

Arrest people who dissent? Wow. Thomas Jefferson would have taken issue with that. Joseph Stalin would have agreed with you, however.

12:04 PM  
Anonymous Andrew Donaldson said...

Many, many American papers during World War 2, including the New York Times, questioned whether our national interest was served being in alliance with the Soviet Union...and on that subject, the papers were right and the White House was wrong. No paper served as a bigger cheerleader for the war in its opening stages than the New York Times. When the Times discovered it had been lied to on a wholesale basis, this helped disillusion war supporters on the staff...just as it has disillusioned the majority of the American people. If you say that the White House coordinating people to cry out, on cue, "War is Peace. Slavery is Liberty. Ignorance is Wisdom." is being America's biggest cheerleader, well, I suppose those ARE cheers. Just not cheers that are going to be supported by those who love America's people and its ideals, as opposed to just the dirt beneath our feet...because when you deliberately try to deceive the people and undermine our freedoms to support a war, you aren't supporting America.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Andrew Donaldson said...

And Ed, the Count of Monte Cristo would want nothing to do with you.

12:25 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Salute propaganda? Shut down the newspapers? Arrest dissenters? Ed, Ed, Ed... You are officially a parody of your own political party. I'd laugh if people like you weren't so f*cking dangerous.

1:25 PM  
Anonymous mike_c said...

these pigs lie reflexively....
Their default choice of response is ALWAYS to lie. ALWAYS.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous Tim4319 said...

There it is in black-n-white.

Now, to still spit the talking points and support this administration means the morales you preach, you do not believe yourself. You are just a mindless zombie, regurgitating words.

1:40 PM  
Anonymous Ed Dantes said...

That's right American Dissident, don't laugh because we are very, very dangerous. How about attaching your social security number (if you have one) the next time you leave another ignorant post. We'll be sure to find you, friend.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Brownie said...

It's more sad than funny, Ed. But seriously, stop trolling and go get a library card and have a look at a history book. If you are going to mouth the Fascist Party line, at least know what you are asking for. There is nothing more dangerous than ignorance.

Dissent has never brought down any democracy, but the lack of it has, many times.

2:08 PM  
Anonymous The Blue Man said...

These guys aren't interested in a fact-based reality. They invent the news and Fox and Rush spew it out. People like Ed, are given their invented opinions and like it. Why shouldn't they invent the opinions of the soldiers who fight in their invented wars too? Priceless.

2:15 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Ed's use of the word, "friend" at the end of his hate spew to AD reminded me of the hatemongers who go after Eric Bogosian's character in the Oliver Stone film "Talk Radio."

Those hate mongers used fear to try to silence Bogosian's character. Then they used violence.

Let's hope Ed has evolved beyond those hate mongers.

2:34 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

the New York Times printed back then the kind of seditions crap it spews out on a daily basis nowadays?

Ed, first the word is spelled "seditious" and it's typically used by monarchs or dictators. I doubt very much that you actually read newspapers (unless someone on Fox And Friends reads it to you) but maybe you would provide a specific link to the New York Times publishing a seditious statement?

It's not the job of the American Press to be a "cheerleader" for the Presidency or a war sold on falsehoods. If they are publishing the truth and it results in a lack of respect in the American Monarchy, then I'd say that is a pretty damned good thing. But then, I happen to believe in freedom of speech and the press doing its job. I guess that makes me an elite thinker.

2:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two words for Ed: Judy Miller. And for everyone else: note how quickly he reverted to thinly veiled thuggish threats (what's your SS number) when the rhetoric didn't silence us?

4:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In their "alternate universe," they aren't doing anything wrong.

-- Sort of like Oliver North, right? Or Nixon's inner circle.

The same people who scream and yell because of Monica Lewinsky are the first in line to deny that the Bush Administration is doing anything wrong. Why is that?

6:53 PM  
Blogger Snoop said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
Ed, no one is talking about putting "a positive spin" on things.
This is wholesale deceit.

My man Rob, What’s up! I go away for a few days and your back spinning utter denial. I continue to love reading the expansive knowledge of your peeps.

I particularly like this one...

“Now, to still spit the talking points and support this administration means the morales (morals I guess) you preach, you do not believe yourself. You are just a mindless zombie, regurgitating words.”
NO, NO THIS ONE...
“It's more sad than funny, Ed. But seriously, stop trolling and go get a library card and have a look at a history book. If you are going to mouth the Fascist Party line, at least know what you are asking for. There is nothing more dangerous than ignorance.”

Like you have a library card, Oh crap your likely a squatter at one of Amerika’s fine institutions of higher liberal learning, hence the card crack, Oooo!

U liberals need to come up with better catch phrases. These people come to exclusively liberal blogs read a ridiculously one-sided version of an argument and have the audacity of questioning someone’s intelligence. Are you people who post here on crack?
OH ANOTHER....
“These guys aren't interested in a fact-based reality. They invent the news and Fox and Rush spew it out. People like Ed”

What is YOUR truth Einstein, someone here said that Air America is much needed ear masturbation for the masses.
Hey smarty, did you know Air America is going broke and the founder stole money from a children’s charity to help pay for it. classic.

Ah never mind, Snoop’s just making this stuff up. Liberalopoly is best played when all regurgitate the same blather, but coin those who do not agree as being ignorant.

I keep saying it but, nothing is funnier than a cracked liberal.

1:11 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Snoop, are you suggesting that you think Ed took the right tone with his fellow commenters? You didn't see the veiled threat?

And I'm sorry, what spin am I offering? The woman is clearly heard on tape, clearly going over questions, how to respond to scripted quips. C'mon, Snoop. She uses the word "scripted" to describe what she's doing?

2:10 PM  
Blogger Snoop said...

"How about attaching your social security number...."

Ok I missed that. That tis not cool. I've said before I think liberals are wacked but you can't ake this stuff personally.

On the scripted stuff I’m giving YOU a hard time, but some of your fellow posters dude simply lack common sense.
All I say is read closely, study BOTH sides. If your goal is to post something so that your fellow liberals can say “gee what a great guy, he hates Bush too” then have at it. But substituting your supposed truth for someone’s supposed ignorance is just plain foolish.

Remember the Today Show interview where this one reporter asked the soldier about “how BAD” things were going in Iraq and the soldier said the contrary.
The reporter tried like hell to make the soldier say something negative.
Is that YOUR truth?
This is like the photo op argument we had before. Coming here and pretending that this....

“So if there’s a question that the president comes up with that we haven’t drilled through today, then I’m expecting the microphone to go right back to you, Captain Kennedy, and you to handle [it]."

does not happen every damm day in every level of government is beyond ridiculous.
Anybody that has been involved in setting up a presentation, press op, briefing, photo op (which I have in the military, civilian and not-for-profit world) know every detail is “scripted”.

Remember John Kerry throwing the football back and forth, remember him playing catch with his daughter, no different that Bush hugging a couple of Negros after Katrina or him landing on a freaken Aircraft carrier.

So I’m asking as I did in the other post, what is the point? If all who come here and read these entries or any other blog for that matter, and you already think Bush sucks the administration is evil and corrupt is there some “degree” of angst that manifests itself once you read it. I already know your answer.....preach to the choir, accumulate the Amen’s and solidify the base....
Is denial necessary to solidify your base?
Just askin.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

As with many of the arguments between left and right on JABBS, the devil is in the details.

I think the question to be asked is, "what is a photo op and what is a scripted event."

You don't see JABBS knocking photo-ops. They are, as you suggest, commonplace on all political levels. But you also didn't see John Kerry denying that a football toss on the tarmac was a photo op. No one probably asked. It was accepted for what it was.

But compare that with the Bush Administration's penchant for scripted events. In the Tikrit situation, Barber actually used the word "scripted" to describe what she was doing -- rehearsing questions and answers, what quips to expect from Bush and how to respond, how to make sure to appear spontaneous as you engage the president, and to pass the mike over if the president asked something that hadn't been (her word) "scripted."

Then McClellan denied that any coaching had occurred, denied that he had been asked earlier in the day about coaching, tried to spin the question (are you suggesting that the troops weren't speaking from their hearts, he asked -- which wasn't the question), and then deferring the question to Defense.

You may think that JABBS draws a fine line between what is acceptable and what isn't -- it may be a legit point -- but you're wrong to suggest that the fine line is drawn arbitrarily.

Look at a related issue. The Bush Administration screens at town hall meeetings. A person may say, "Who doesn't screen at political gatherings?" But the question isn't screening -- it's the type of screening.

Politicians screen for threats -- guns, criminals, drunks, etc. But the Bush Administration screened for GOP donors and volunteers. People had to sign loyalty oaths at some events. Reporters and photographers were asked to provide racial and religious background info for some Cheney events -- not only unusual, but unconstitutional.

Beyond that, there's evidence to show that the administration screened for specific questioners -- to meet certain demographics -- and scripted the questions to be asked of the president, either by guiding the questioner, or by making sure to select specific questioners based on the questions they proposed asking (on cards submitted prior to the events).

You don't see that sort of screening or scripting at a Kerry, Gore or Clinton event. No evidence of that, to my knowledge.

Take another similar issue: video news releases (VNRs). A person may ask: "Aren't VNRs common?" The answer is yes, among government and corporations, they've been used since the 1980s. Reagan, Bush and Clinton used them.

But that's a so-called "straw man" -- a question that is slightly off-topic, so as to minimize the point.

The point -- from the non-partisan GAO, but hammered home by JABBS and others -- is that the Bush Administration was the first to regularly use "undocumented" VNRs -- so as to trick news stations into thinking the VNRs were from legitimate news sources, and not the government. The Bush VNRs used actors posing as journalists or man-on-the-street interviewees -- also uncommon.

When the Bush Administration was caught in the act, Bush said the Justice Department said it was ok. When that didn't fly with the GAO, he suggested individual news producers should recognize that the undocumented VNRs came from the government, and then "document" them for their viewers. Talk about passing the buck.

So, Snoop, that's my beef. You can take broad swipes at these issues -- "Who doesn't do a photo op?" "Who doesn't screen at a political event?" "Who doesn't use VNRs?" But those are superficial questions -- straw men designed to minimize the question at hand.

If you or other conservatives are willing to admit, or at least address, these details, then we can have a great debate -- here or elsewhere. But the details are important, and to ignore them means a superficial back-and-forth that gets us nowhere.

Would you have that debate, Snoop?

3:34 PM  
Anonymous ash said...

Maybe Snoop will agree to a debate once s/he learns the difference between "your" and "you're." And yes, it does matter.

4:54 PM  
Blogger Snoop said...

U know Rob I don’t disagree with you for the most part, YOU may be the rarity in the discussion of political stuff. BUT

“If you or other conservatives are willing to admit, or at least address, these details, then we can have a great debate,”

Just what do you want to debate, we all have core ideology. Having said that just what benefit do people get by debating political stuff.
The basics I don’t agree with abortion, but I believe it should be legal, but I don’t want one cent of my tax dollars going towards the execution or promotion of it.
Lower taxes, smaller government, bigger military, world “influence” but not world police.
Vouchers, controlled educational spending, reduction of personal and corporate welfare.
Whatever your issues are, they are written in stone. Some people are wishy washy enough to have their opinion change as the wind blows, those are the people who worry me.

But the fact is Rob liberals don’t want debate, they don’t want to discuss this is where the elitist tag comes from.
Lets say a democrat is elected in 08 it would be disingenuous for me to post an entry about some that all HUMANS engage in. I don’t bit more care about what Bush said or what was stages anymore than if folks on your side did it. THEY ARE HUMAN, WITH HUMAN FRAILTIES. This is a real life chess match. My problem is you truly believe it matters and further more you think your side is immune from those frailties.
This is the difference between conservative and liberal blog sites. You concentrate on the individual I care about the ideology. Bush is hardly the ideal guy, but for god sakes, he was not Kerry as far as I was concerned.
This is why the Miers pick was plain stupid. Our person is in the WH, I’m like screw what your side thinks, if you don’t like it get you ass out and vote.
However, liberal blogs do not forward issues, ideas, concepts and knowledge.
You want me to debate what Bush and the Admin said or did for what? You are on the outside, hence all of the angst.

Oh and Ash, I’m sorry you don’t have anything more of substance to contribute.
I typically don’t give a rats ass about spelling and grammar. As long as I can decipher the gist of the comment it all good. Getting on a blog only to post some bullshit about something so trivial is just asinine.
Take a clue from Rob, I don’t agree with him but he is one of few libs who post here that is reasonable and insightful.

Rob you need to check your, you are, you’re, yo, peeps

6:22 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

Snoop, if you are saying (at great length, I might add) that everybody engages in photo-op spin, so it's okay, I'd just like to explain the difference.

This situation is different because, unlike a candidate or any other politician, Bush happens to be my president too. Singing the party tune and smiling is fine when you are only presenting yourself to, or representing your own party. But this man is supposed to be working for all of us and so far all I see is a pattern of half-truths and happy talk about matters of life-or-death (for 2000 soldiers, just death).

I don't give a sh*t about debates or convincing any ditto-head I'm smarter than they are, I just want my president to quite wasting my money on republican campaign spin, and to start being objective and critical of little details, like invading another country without an adequate plan.

This guy is so busy trying to pull up his own poll numbers and rewrite his history of failure in Iraq, he can't possibly being doing the actual "hard work" Americans deserve from a real president.

9:22 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Just what do you want to debate, we all have core ideology. Having said that just what benefit do people get by debating political stuff.
>>

Snoop, what I'm saying is that if we can't agree on the basic facts, then we can't really debate the issues.

You go to the right wing blogosphere, or turn on Brit Hume or Sean Hannity, and you see "alternate" facts. I mean, the Barber video, coaching the troops, has played everywhere, but conservative bloggers are trying to convince me it didn't happen. They want me to believe that it's liberal media bias, and that what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears didn't exist.

It's a non-starter, which is why there isn't real debate in the comments here. You have conservatives who come to this site and name call, or patronize, or say things like, "Keep it up, that's why you guys always lose," etc. And when they do discuss the issue posted, it's usually to dismiss it as meaningless, or to say it's an example of liberal media bias.

And Snoop, look at your response to what I wrote? Did you answer directly? No, you went on a tangent. So we aren't having a discussion -- we're just two guys who are talking in each other's direction. Again, it's a non-starter.

10:18 PM  
Blogger Snoop said...

But this man is supposed to be working for all of us and so far all I see is a pattern of half-truths and happy talk about matters of life-or-death (for 2000 soldiers, just death).

AD, I should have included you with my man, Rob.
He is suppose to be working for all of us? Are you high, please share cause you don’t believe that. As far as lefties are concerned he is the anti-christ. Liberals have even said as much.
You folks keep bringing up the war dead like it matters to you but STILL don’t acknowledge that your peeps voted for it.
Just think about this, why are the people on your side still silent on the issue? Why when Dick Drubin was asked point black what the democrats plan would be on Iraq he dodged the question? You know why cause dems know Iraq MUST succeed. So throwing out death numbers AD is just pointless. You use it as a propaganda tool.

Rob, believe me when I say, I’m not dodging the question. I honestly don’t know why it matters.
People don’t give a damm. The media is not lock jawed on it cause THEY ENGAGE IN THE PROPAGANDA TOO.
Dem law makers are no hot and bothered about it cause THEY DO IT TOO!

“The administration got caught then, just as it got caught by the General Accounting Office found that the administration paid journalists and created other forms of "covert propaganda" in violation of "governmentwide" anti-propaganda rules -- to tout Medicare and Education programs.”

Sorry dude this is only a point of contention to you because, dare I saw it again your kind is on the outside looking in, its your turn to scrutinize.
Is it WRONG yes, but ya know what, its just DUMB to do because the spin does not work.
This is kinda like e-mail scams. If you stupid enough to fall for it you deserved to get scammed.
Anything you read on right wing or left wing or KKK web sites, anything you see, anything that comes out of Bush’s mouth or any other prez if you think its crap or potential spin they do your homework.
You and JABBS look at this as “oh my god, he’s scamming America, he committing fraud, its illegal.......the poor dumb ass folks of America won’t know any better”

Dude its not working anyway, I as a Republican thinks its crap, the “No Child left behind” program is crap. You can’t spin CRAP. Like Hillary’s health care reform IT WAS CRAP, no amount of political spin or propaganda is going to change that.

So again, sorry I don’t see it as a big deal, hence what debate? In any so called “debate” what is your goal? To say you are right, to say the prez sucks, to say he is evil? OK you get all 3, but how does that make points for your side?

10:07 AM  
Blogger Snoop said...

Sorry I hacked that up ASH (I suck at typing, sue me!,I'm suppose to be on my way to work.

10:09 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Snoop, I stand by my statement that a president, any president is supposed to be above party politics. He (or she) has the unique job of representing the best interests of every American. He put his hand a Bible and swore to God he would. So you admit he isn't even trying to do that? Okay, we agree.

Yep, I hate Bush, and if I were Christian I might think he was the anti-christ, but that's because he is destroying my country. I love my country. If he'd stopped doing that, I might of even voted for him.

Now, Snoop, you know you're not representing my point of view when you imply I, or all Democrats, are "against the war". Read my previous posts. I never said Sadaam Hussein should still be in office. I have exactly two grudges with Bush on that count: 1) He lied or was ignorant about what he presented as the justifications for the invasion. Am I angry at Dems for believing their president? No. Hell I believed him. 2) He botched the job up at every opportunity. He ignored Powell and listened to Rumsfeld.

How many US soldiers were killed Kosovo? How many in Iraq? You say those numbers aren't important? Tell that to the mothers of US soldiers. Rice admitted today we could be there 10 more years. Will those numbers matter when the hit 3000? 5000? 10,000? The public won't stand it Snoop. Bush's incompetence as Commander in Chief will cause us to lose in Iraq more thoroughly than any other factor. All of this could have been avoided if Bush wasn't so arrogant he ignored what his own experts told him would happen.

And who are you kidding with this BS about how no one cares, and "our kind" doesn't get it? Look at the polls. "Our kind" is in the majority, and growing. And unfortunately for Bush, we do get it.

7:00 PM  
Blogger Snoop said...

The American Dissident said...
Snoop, I stand by my statement that a president, any president is supposed to be above party politics. He (or she) has the unique job of representing the best interests of every American. He put his hand a Bible and swore to God he would. So you admit he isn't even trying to do that? Okay, we agree.

YES WE AGREE ON THAT, HOWEVER AD THE REPUBLICANS WON. HE IS ENTITLES TO PUSH HIS AGENDA. YOU NOR I MAY AGREE BUT HE WON THAT RIGHT.

Yep, I hate Bush, and if I were Christian I might think he was the anti-christ, but that's because he is destroying my country.

SEE AD THIS IS WHERE WE DIFFER GREATLY. THIS IS WHERE I CAN’T SEEM TO PROCESS LEFT WING THINKING. JUST WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS HE “DESTROYING,” ALL OF YOU BLOG CONSPIRACY THEORISTS THROW OUT THESE INCENDIARY TERMS AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS WHATSOEVER. IS ALL PERFECT, COULD ALL BE BETTER, OF COURSE.

I love my country. If he'd stopped doing that, (DOING WHAT) I might of even voted for him.

Now, Snoop, you know you're not representing my point of view when you imply I, or all Democrats, are "against the war". Read my previous posts.

AD YOU AND ROB MIGHT BE DIFFERENT, BUT YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY.
WHEN I POST IT NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT YOU AND ROB.
I HAVE SAID OVER AND OVER THAT I SPECIFICALLY READ “YOUR” SIDE AND STUDY LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. WITHOUT GETTING INTO THOSE THINGS AGAIN I’LL SAY AGAIN READ LIBERAL BLOGS, READ MOST OF THE LIBERAL POST ON THIS SITE, READ KOS, DU, BULLDOG, MARTIAN JESUS AD YOU CAN’T MAKE THAT CASE FOR LIB DEMS. THEY ARE REMARKABLE TRANSPARENT

I never said Sadaam Hussein should still be in office. I have exactly two grudges with Bush on that count: 1) He lied or was ignorant about what he presented as the justifications for the invasion. Am I angry at Dems for believing their president? No. Hell I believed him. 2) He botched the job up at every opportunity. He ignored Powell and listened to Rumsfeld.

I’LL ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN, THEY WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS ON YOUR SIDE NOT MORE FORCEFUL, DELIBERATE, RANTING, ANGRY TAKING TO THE STREETS AD? HATE BUSH ALL YOU WANT, CALL HIM A LIAR, A MONSTER, SAY HE SHOULD BE IMPEACHED WHATEVER BUT....NOTHING.....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CAN BE DONE WITHOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL ISLE BEING IN ON IT. I CONTINUE TO BE AMAZED HOW NARROW INDIVIDUALS VISION CAN BE. BLAME YOUR GOVERNMENT THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. BUSH CAN’T DO JACK ON HIS OWN.
IF LIBS WANT TO THINK HIS IS STUPID, IGNORANT, BUMBLING A FOOL GO AHEAD. BUT DON’T TURN AROUND AND SAY HE ORCHESTRATED ALL BY HIS LITTLE SELF THIS GRAND LIE AND SCHEME TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I AGREE WITH THE DECISION TO GO TO IRAQ, IT IS NECESSARY THE U.S MUST HAVE A PRESENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST NOT FOR TODAY OR TOMORROW BUT FOR 10, 15 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. DISAGREE, FINE BUT DON’T TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND SAY WE ALL WERE DUPED. MORE DEMOCRATS I GUARANTEE YOU THINK THE SAME WAY I DO. BLAME THEM.

How many US soldiers were killed Kosovo? How many in Iraq? You say those numbers aren't important? Tell that to the mothers of US soldiers.

DUDE YOU CAN’T GO THERE, I SERVED IN THE MILITARY AND OF COURSE 1 DEATH IS TOO MUCH BUT WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER MILITARY YOU “CHOOSE” TO TAKE THAT RISK.

Rice admitted today we could be there 10 more years. Will those numbers matter when the hit 3000? 5000? 10,000? The public won't stand it Snoop. Bush's incompetence as Commander in Chief will cause us to lose in Iraq more thoroughly than any other factor.
All of this could have been avoided if Bush wasn't so arrogant he ignored what his own experts told him would happen.

READ WHAT I SAID ABOVE.......

I’LL SAY THIS AGAIN AS WELL......AD, DUDE CAN’T RUN FOR OFFICE.
SO HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC PLAN?
WHAT WILL YOU DEMAND OUT OF YOUR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, WHEN WILL YOU HOLD DEMOCRATS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ROLE IN THIS INCOMPETENCE.
SEE AD YOU AND OTHER LIB DEMS ARE NOT EVEN HONEST IN LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PICTURE.
THIS IS WHY I CAN’T TAKE MANY OF YOU DEMOCRATS SERIOUSLY.
IT CAN’T ALL BE ABOUT BUSH.
BUSH ONE DAY WILL GO AWAY, WHAT WILL YOU GUYS FOCUS ON THEN.
THIS IS WHY LIB DEMS CAN’T WIN ELECTIONS.
IF YOU KEEP REPEATING THE SKY IS PURPLE ENOUGH YOU HOPE OTHERS WILL START TO SEE VARYING SHADES OF PURPLE.
KEEP RANTING AND FOCUSING ON BUSH IT MAKES IT HARDER AND HARDER FOR YOUR SIDE TO WIN THE WHITEHOUSE.

12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares