Politics: A new beginning

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was just looking at this story, and thinking about posting about it here. When we find out that the President's appearances are -- in part -- artifice calculated to look good, his credibility takes a hit. I personally thought that he did the right thing in going to Baghdad on Thanksgiving, and the criticism of the trip was uncharitable, to say the least. Obviously, there are other criticisms I have of his Iraq policy, but this is not one of them. But when you find out that the turkey in the photographs was fake, and that he wasn't serving it to the troops, then you start to wonder about his motivations. Likewise with the new reports about the bogus British Airways story -- it's just too cute. Those of you who don't suspect the Administration's credibility to start with can surely explain all of this away as innocuous salesmanship, but those of us who distrust him find confirmations of our concerns.

How would the President's supporters take this sort of thing if they'd heard it coming from Al Gore?

I think that people who support the Administration can "explain it away" quite legitimately as media wacko-ness. We all know my thoughts on the President, and even I thought this story was ridiculous. If I were walking into a place and knew my picture was going to be taken at Thanksgiving, I would pose with the only real turkey there too, not with a steam tray. It's not like he started cutting up the turkey and giving pieces to the soldiers.

The British Airways thing is just weird. Maybe it wasn't really BA, maybe it was some Iraqi American-haters pretending to be BA to throw off the President's security people.

Reporters feeling "betrayed" or whatever is also ridiculous. They have to understand what was going on, and be able to laugh at themselves for reporting what they were told.

On the other hand, I tend to think that the rabid GOP supporters around here would jump all over Al Gore (or Clinton, or Dean, or Clark) for doing exactly the same thing as Bush did. I more than "tend to think" -- I'm pretty damn certain.

Which is a sad, sad commentary on this board.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
On the other hand, I tend to think that the rabid GOP supporters around here would jump all over Al Gore (or Clinton, or Dean, or Clark) for doing exactly the same thing as Bush did. I more than "tend to think" -- I'm pretty damn certain.

Which is a sad, sad commentary on this board.

No, it's not. I would want the GOP faction to call bullshit when they see a Dem president governing by photo op, because if no one calls bullshit it will quickly subsume the entire role of the presidency (the media being what it is --- lazy, and the public being what it is --- um, "visually oriented," to put it charitably). Of course, that's not all of what Bush does in a given day, but using gobs of taxpayer money to create situations so the President (whoever it may be) can present a particular image is not in the best traditions of this country. It reduces all leadership to campaigning, with the party in power having the advantage of staging more dramatic backdrops for its candidate.

If the opposition party didn't call bullshit on excessive use of these things, the President might as well close the Oval Office and instead conduct the nation's business on a rotating basis on the deck of an aircraft carrier, on a factory line, and in an elementary school classroom.

I think all fakeness should be blown open to the maximum degree by the media. Whether that means pointing out that a vial of crack used in a policy speech was not actually purchased 300 yards from the White House, or pointing out that the turkey the President was portrayed offering to the troops was in fact thrown away uneaten, embarassment for disclosure of an appearance/reality departure is the only thing politicians have left to fear.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, it's not. I would want the GOP faction to call bullshit when they see a Dem president governing by photo op, because if no one calls bullshit it will quickly subsume the entire role of the presidency (the media being what it is --- lazy, and the public being what it is --- um, "visually oriented," to put it charitably). Of course, that's not all of what Bush does in a given day, but using gobs of taxpayer money to create situations so the President (whoever it may be) can present a particular image is not in the best traditions of this country. It reduces all leadership to campaigning, with the party in power having the advantage of staging more dramatic backdrops for its candidate.

If the opposition party didn't call bullshit on excessive use of these things, the President might as well close the Oval Office and instead conduct the nation's business on a rotating basis on the deck of an aircraft carrier, on a factory line, and in an elementary school classroom.

I don't think that (a) the turkey, (b) the (supposed) BA conversation or (c) giving reporters incorrect information for security purposes are improper use of taxpayers' money, and I don't disagree with him going to Iraq to support the troops. The article didn't seem to be disagreeing with the trip per se, but instead was disagreeing with minor things to do with the trip.

I was betting that the rabidly GOP people here would jump all over Gore (or whoever) for (a) posing with a turkey that was just for show, (b) saying that there had been some conversation with a BA pilot and/or (c) giving reporters incorrect information for security purposes. They'd bitch that he was a lying Democrat (or DEM for those who prefer to use that absolutely ridiculous capitalized abbreviation) who just wanted to mislead people. I wasn't saying that they'd bitch that the trip was a waste of taxpayer money, though they probably would do that too (plus saying that a president who had never really served in the military shouldn't act like he's all supportive of the military when clearly he isn't or he would have served, blah blah blah).

So your comment is off the point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
It's still not clear to me that Iraq can legally repudiate debt of the Saddam regime,

Legally? fuck legally. Iraq says, "yeah you want that money, I gave it to the U.S., sure I owe , but you gotta get it from US."

Then we say "Saddam debts? we don't recognize no stinking Saddam debts."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was just looking at this story, and thinking about posting about it here. When we find out that the President's appearances are -- in part -- artifice calculated to look good, his credibility takes a hit. .........................when you find out that the turkey in the photographs was fake, and that he wasn't serving it to the troops, then you start to wonder about his motivations.

bitch please! First from the article:

White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

"This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."

The first paragraph, and in particular:
"White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events"

Certianly isn'rt supported by the second. But wait, has he stopped beating his wife?

the guy grabbed a fucking turkey for a photo opp, and suddenly he wasn't with the troops? Are the guys behind him just pasted in. Beleive me, I had that head dress, I know you can cut and paste, was he there?



Atticus's "he shouldn't have spent taxpayer money to go?" Hillary should? What did she accomplish?

He is the president. The country was made to feel somewhat better because of the trip. The country needs to feel better.

If I see much more of this crap, I'm creating a shizzilator-type translator that will change all of your random bitching into what it really means:

input- when you find out that the turkey in the photographs was fake, and that he wasn't serving it to the troops, then you start to wonder about his motivations
shizzilate!!!!!!
output- its going to be tough for one of our space cases to beat a poular sitting president, especially when our front runner is a fucking conspiracy theorist, so let's look at decisions made on the fly for a photo op to try and muddy the water


(I invented this idea! And I do IP litigation so don't take it)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I would want the GOP faction to call bullshit when they see a Dem president governing by photo op,

I'll call bullshit alright, on this. The guy stood up to a good deal of the world, and convinced the US public that we should invade Iraq. You can say he lied, you can say he's dumb, you can say he's far too much a fundamentalist to be left with his finger on the button. It is not, however, credible to say he governs by photo op.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

Hollywood writers do not deny that they craft elaborate lines to showcase Reagan, but they maintain these lines are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Hollywood writers do not deny that they craft elaborate lines to showcase Reagan, but they maintain these lines are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.

exactly. And meanwhile, irl, Reagan, between photo ops, killed the Soviet Union. someone alert the Dean campaign!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Then we say "Saddam debts? we don't recognize no stinking Saddam debts."

Maybe someone already covered this, but there is an international tradition of sorts dealing with the repudiation of "odious debt". Money that is loaned to an illegitimate leader of a country and used for his own aggrandizement or outright enrichment, with the knowledge of the lender, does not become a claim upon the people, for whom the loan provided no benefit. It allows people to escape such debt, and also serves to make said lenders a bit more careful about sending money to Idi Amin types.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You can say he lied, you can say he's dumb, you can say he's far too much a fundamentalist to be left with his finger on the button.

You're right about all these things, of course.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're right about all these things, of course.

answer 1:
The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now, who knows what the real situation is?
answer 2: sizzilate!!!!!
me and my ivory tower snobbish friends don't get why the American people don't buy into our liberal fantasies, and delusions. why don't people get bothered that Bush preelection didn't know the name of Pakistan's leader? Just because he was able to convince that leader to help us deal with terrorism doesn't mean he's an effective President. he's dumb because he didn't know the name. Oh, and Dean saying Soviet Union was just misspeaking.
answer 3: yes. you can say those things, even given your Patriot aCt delusions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe someone already covered this, but there is an international tradition of sorts dealing with the repudiation of "odious debt". Money that is loaned to an illegitimate leader of a country and used for his own aggrandizement or outright enrichment, with the knowledge of the lender, does not become a claim upon the people, for whom the loan provided no benefit. It allows people to escape such debt, and also serves to make said lenders a bit more careful about sending money to Idi Amin types.

I haven't seen a breakdown showing how much of the old debt may fall into this category. Probably debt relating to those huge Saddam statutes we've been destroying would, and anything that went for "presidential palaces" and video collections might, but it's a harder argument to say that money that went for military spending, roads & infrastructure, or state ministry buildings could be repudiated.

My understanding is the Bush administration doesn't want to argue the fine points here, but instead wants to pressure the debts to be forgiven regardless of what they were for, out of the goodness of the creditors hearts as well as the desire of the creditors to have any piece of the current Iraqi boondoggles.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

And finally gets something right.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I was just looking at this story, and thinking about posting about it here. When we find out that the President's appearances are -- in part -- artifice calculated to look good, his credibility takes a hit. I personally thought that he did the right thing in going to Baghdad on Thanksgiving, and the criticism of the trip was uncharitable, to say the least. Obviously, there are other criticisms I have of his Iraq policy, but this is not one of them. But when you find out that the turkey in the photographs was fake, and that he wasn't serving it to the troops, then you start to wonder about his motivations. Likewise with the new reports about the bogus British Airways story -- it's just too cute. Those of you who don't suspect the Administration's credibility to start with can surely explain all of this away as innocuous salesmanship, but those of us who distrust him find confirmations of our concerns.

How would the President's supporters take this sort of thing if they'd heard it coming from Al Gore?

OK, I think I understand it conceptually, but from what the article says, the adminstration did not bring the turkey with them and the military say it is standard issue at all holiday meals. So the turkey is laying there and they say, "hey Mr. President, why don't you pose with the turkey." This should be gone by tomorrow.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. . . and they say, "hey Mr. President, why don't you pose with the turkey."

Senator Clinton was there?

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)