Bush Positive Feedback Staged
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051014/...r_wh/bush_iraq

From Metafilter:

I'm sorry if this is a tad unwanted. Iraq has been rehashed many times, has it not? I just found it hilariously ironic and strangely sad that this is still happening and people are still believing it. Was anyone expecting any less?

A poster in the metafilter thread linked to several articles quoting Bush as well, which I found relevant to this candy-coated presentation:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98111,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9287434/

Some other interesting comments on this:

http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbe...ive/001948.php

Ahem. Enough linking from me. What do ya'll think?

i just think that it is hillarious because most of bush's speeches are ridiculously rehearsed.
i think that kurt vonneget said it best when he called for the impeachement of bush.
this is how he put it, (paraphrase)
"if you can get impeached for getting your dicked sucked, then why can't you be impeached for starting a war that less than 40% of the population agrees with."


I just love seeing this kind of stuff, Bush is like your retarded cousin, he''s too loveable to make fun of

Yeah, I'm sure this is the first time anything like this has happened. Like the questions asked in the '96, 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. All of those were genuine.

Arlia's right, really. Staged conferences/Q&A sessions and the like have been around far longer than Bush or anyone current. Not to be disparaging really, as I do disagree with the tactic as well as the administration, but I think it's a bit unfair to attribute it to Bush and portray him entirely negatively without taking into account that they've been doing it for decades.

Maybe it's just personal leaning, but I'm a bit suspecious of this. Yes, I'll look further into it, get answers from alternative sources, but I get the impression this is a standard "get information out to the people" way of doing things. Similar to when a movie villain explains his evil plans to the hero -- it's not realistic, not really supposed to be; the point is so everyone else knows what they are so they can better follow the events as they happen. Maybe someone else (Allison Barber, if I read it right) came up with the feedback and went a little overboard on the compliments, and picking up on poorly-done insincerity isn't Bush's (or most politicians') strong point? Maybe Bush was tired, wanted to be somewhere else, and decided to just go with it and get it over with rather than contest the point and take longer?

Basically, ever watch Ask This Old House? You know how whenever the guys show up at someone's house, the homeowner isn't surprised they show up (sometimes the camera is inside the house before they answer the door, catching them engaged in some perfectly normal activity before the doorbell rings and interrupts them), and, while the job is being performed, ask these pointed questions that most normal people wouldn't be interested in, but are extremely relevant to viewers thinking of trying these things on their own? It's obviously scripted, but that's not the point. The point is to get the message out. Now take that, add a scriptwriter a little too dosed up on happy pills, and imagine what you get. Is it similar to what's going on here?

I'm not saying this absolutely must be the case OMGZ IF U DON'T AGRE WIT ME U SUK, I'm just offering alternative conclusions to jump to.

Someone care to explain to me what this has to do with staged feedback?

Well aside from the Nazis, did they ever do it this much? Or even to this extent?

And this kind of propaganda isn't just being used for supporting the war with Iraq, what about the government paying off Armstrong Williams (among others) to support No Child Left Behind?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...litics/3397190

Of course, after it turned out that Jeff Gannon, (one of the "reporters" that commonly asked Bush questions in his press "briefings",) turned out to be anything but a reporter, you'd think the press would be more openly skeptical about any staged press briefing given by this administration.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason...ml?sid=1314204
(This was the best article I could find on Gannon, as most I find on Google just seem to jump on the fact that he was a male escort of some kind.)

Edited to add: Does anyone know if Countdown with Olbermann's shows are repeated? I've got his Thursday episode Tivo'd, but if it repeats I'd strongly suggest everyone else watch Olbermann's coverage of this. Print does not speak how wooden & scripted this came off.

SWK

I believe that no one complained about Saddam Hussein because of the fact that if they did they would be dead by weeks end, not anymore though.

Nobody was impeached over that. Better still, it wasn't the fact that Clinton had been receiving oral sex, it was that he did so with a member of the staff, which smacks of impropriety.

Also, we didn't start the war with 40% support. We are at 40%. Past versus present.

And further still, as has been pointed out above, staged conferences are the norm. I mean hell, since we're still throwing around half truths and misblames, maybe the whole war in Iraq was masterminded by Sean Connery.

I've said it in past threads: that's really what I'm alwyas saying. In a recent debate with adamark, I noted that I meant the government and administrations "in general" tend to do this. This administration is no different, yes, but just because it is the same does it make it any less bad, I think. Whether it happens now or forever, I think "these" tactics will be bad. Whether you, let's say kill now or in the future, I will still think it's bad. That's obviously one of the core reasons I'm against the Iraq War. Just because it's just about the trillionth war on this planet doesn't mean I feel it's just fine.

Sorry to proselytise ^_~. This was just a springboard into a topic: it's organic, it can go anywhere. If it led to the trend or the specific administration, it's fine.