I am aware that I invoked Godwin's Law quickly in this thread with the Nazi reference. Nevertheless, "Those who are ignorant of history...."
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/06/abc-reports-that-white-house-advance.html ABC reports that White House advance team FAKED the applause by John in DC - 6/28/2005 08:34:00 PM ABC's Terry Moran just reported that the only time Bush got applause was in the middle of his speech when a White House advance team member started clapping all on their own in order to cajole the soldiers into clapping, which they dutifully did. So even the applause was fake. A watershed moment.
Troops Respond to President's Speech -- "We Need Honest Answers, Not Pep Rallies" -Paul Rieckhoff (Iraq War Veteran) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/paul-rieckhoff/troops-respond-to-preside_3317.html Tonight at Fort Bragg, in front of a backdrop of American service members, President Bush told the nation that victory is at hand, as long as we stay the course. Add a banner praising a job well-done and an aircraft carrier, and this all begins to seem eerily familiar. But the men and women of the American military have had enough of what’s familiar from this administration. For us there is no alternative but to serve when called, as we have in Iraq for the past two years. Mr. President, why does your view of Iraq look so different from ours? We agree there is no choice but to succeed in Iraq. But, Mr. President, what is the plan to get there? We still don’t know. To quote Senator Chuck Hagel, a great patriot, it seems to those of us who served in Iraq that your administration is “making it up as they go along.” What is success? Tonight you told us that Iraq is on the path to freedom and stability, but what does right look like? The CIA tells us Iraq is now a top breeding ground for terrorists. Are we killing more enemies than we’re making? Last week, Vice President Cheney said the insurgency is in its last throes, but this week we’re told to dig in for a 12-year battle. Have you asked your Secretary of Defense and Vice President to offer the Troops a straight answer? We don’t need to be told about the political successes in Iraq, because we were there to safeguard an election one-year ago that you will certainly cite as progress. And we know that now is not a time for cheerleading. Mr. President, we don’t need to be told that the insurgents intend to shake our will, because we’ve sifted through the havoc wreaked by even the crudest weapons, then watched our friends sent home, changed forever. We don’t need to be told that your administration is committed to taking care of the Troops, because we’ve already gotten the bill you sent us for the meals we ate while recovering at Walter Reed. We don’t need to be told that flak jackets and safer Humvees are on the way, because we’ve already learned that a phone-call home and a few hundred bucks is probably the quickest way to get body armor. Hundreds of Troops have been wounded or killed because of faulty vehicles or missing armor, but who has been held accountable? Each day we fulfill our commitment to this country, but we are still waiting for a Veteran’s Administration that is properly funded and prepared to handle the consequences of this war. This past week it was revealed the VA was one billion dollars short of its health care need. Whose fault is that, and have you punished them for their failure to serve America’s heroes? We have come a long way since the early days of tough talk and “Mission Accomplished” banners. The body count has increased exponentially, and the rumbling of an awakening public can now be heard. But for American Troops on the ground in Iraq, little has changed. For their families back home, the sleepless nights continue. The members of the military have long agreed that the strength of our force in Iraq cannot be sustained with an all-volunteer Army and dwindling recruitment numbers. Are you prepared to tell America’s parents that their children will be needed to finish the job? Mr. President, we need honest answers, not pep rallies.
Well, this has GOT to be true! I mean, who could possibly doubt such a credible source as "John in DC" from americablogspot?
I find it that of the only two people defending the administration here so far, one commented on a side remark by another poster about Nazi Germany, and the other attacked a secondary source of a small side note about applause during the speech. I think that's more telling than anything else about how easy/difficult it is to defend the administration as we move forward.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials sound familiar?
The troops were told to be somber to show deference to the war that we're fighting, so it's completely understandable that the troops would need to be told when to deviate from those instructions and clap. You guys continue to crack me up by turning even trivial things into anti-Bush events. I feel sorry for the negativity that has overcome your brains. I suggest psychiatric sessions for all of you. No exceptions.
You just played the credibility card!!! Wow, you got some great-big-o balls. Same site had the follwoing comment: Brian Williams on NBC just asked on the scene reporter Kelly O'Donnell about the lack of applause. She said the military was told to follow protocol, and "be polite." She DID confirm that the applause in the middle was started by Bush's advance team--and the military "being polite," continued the applause. I was watching ABC news and the first I heard about something unusual happening was George Stephanopoulis grinning and saying that the round of applause the President received was begun by a White House advanced team member.
EXACTLY! be honest with the AMERICAN PEOPLE. i dont even care to listen to what he has to say because he says the exact same things, over-and-over again. i can't understand how people can trust these guys anymore....
I wasn't "defending the administration" I was just commenting on a post made by No Worries. Sorry, but I don't feel obligated to "defend the administration" to you guys. It's not my job. I just think it's silly to criticize a speech based on what a blogger says he saw on the news about the amount of applause. That's why I quoted and replied to the post by No Worries.
I'm sorry. I will never question the bloggers again. Please forgive me. As far as the whole applause "issue" (although I can't believe anyone is even making an issue out of it in the first place), I think mc mark mentioned in another thread that the White House didn't want the speech to come across as a big rah rah kind of speech so the soldiers were asked to be low key because of the fact that there is a war going on.
If that is the case, why did he even travel to Fort Bragg to begin with? Why didn't he just do the speech from the Oval Office, just like his predecessors?
No. He is showing his respect for the troups by lying to get the country into the war and lying about the war, er I mean "peace, afterwards. He made the speach in front of a military crowd because his handlers, Rove et al, wanted it that way. It is as simple as that.
