Darius11 12 #1 October 17, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686462/ QuoteTroops chat with Bush — after rehearsal In teleconference call, president warns of surge in violence ahead of vote Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Oct. 14, 2005 WASHINGTON - It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday’s vote on a new Iraqi constitution. “This is an important time,” Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. “The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you.” Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops. Story continues below ↓ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- advertisement -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ‘Let’s just walk through this’ As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army’s 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. “I’m going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me,” Barber said. A brief rehearsal ensued. “OK, so let’s just walk through this,” Barber said. “Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?” “Captain Smith,” Kennedy said. “Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?” she asked. “Captain Kennedy,” the soldier replied. And so it went. “If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?” Barber asked. “That’s going to go to Captain Pratt,” one of the soldiers said. Click for related story Security stepped up ahead of Iraq referendum “And then if we’re going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they’re handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?” she asked. Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the United States would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete. “So long as I’m the president, we’re never going to back down, we’re never going to give in, we’ll never accept anything less than total victory,” Bush said. The president told them twice that the American people were behind them. “You’ve got tremendous support here at home,” Bush said. Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday’s event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said. “I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect,” he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation. Positive assessment The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation. The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat. “Thank you very much for everything,” he gushed. “I like you.” On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: “Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We’re really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they’re doing everything.” On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: “I can tell you over the past 10 months, we’ve seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations.” Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq. “I thought you looked familiar,” Bush said, and then joked: “I probably look familiar to you, too.” Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a “carefully scripted publicity stunt.” Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said. “If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can’t do it in a nationally televised teleconference,” Rieckhoff said. “He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that’s not a bunch of captains.” © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #2 October 17, 2005 Forced groupspeak? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #3 October 17, 2005 It was said(or advertised) that the troops would be able to ask any thing they want but they were told what to ask and how to ask it. The thing is the only reason we know what happened was the whole instructions were broadcasted by mistake. It is just not something I would expect here I know it happens in other countries all the time, but this is just bull shit.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #4 October 17, 2005 Oh come on Darius. I know you're a liberal ayrab who's teetering on the verge of supporting terrorism but even you can't be spewing this bile without thinking. Do you really think that the elected leader of this great country would do anything unplanned? This just illustrates how AWESOME Bush is, because he knew to rehearse, saving the armed forces any embarassment. Look, it's quite simple: Everyone in the military LOVES BUSH! It would be normal for anyone in the military given the opportunity to SPEAK TO BUSH! woudl become confused and tongue tied. This was Fearless Leaders chance to put them at ease - that look of confusion is a simple ploy to put others at ease, after all - if the 'leader of the free world' can come across on TV like he's totally out of depth then we all have hope! I'm calling Homeland Security right now! How did you spell your last name again?? TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #5 October 17, 2005 I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #6 October 17, 2005 QuoteOh come on Darius. I know you're a liberal ayrab who's teetering on the verge of supporting terrorism but even you can't be spewing this bile without thinking. Do you really think that the elected leader of this great country would do anything unplanned? This just illustrates how AWESOME Bush is, because he knew to rehearse, saving the armed forces any embarassment. Look, it's quite simple: Everyone in the military LOVES BUSH! It would be normal for anyone in the military given the opportunity to SPEAK TO BUSH! woudl become confused and tongue tied. This was Fearless Leaders chance to put them at ease - that look of confusion is a simple ploy to put others at ease, after all - if the 'leader of the free world' can come across on TV like he's totally out of depth then we all have hope! I'm calling Homeland Security right now! How did you spell your last name again?? There will be no humor in SC. For Great Deals on Gear Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #7 October 17, 2005 From what you posted, it just shows good planning. Better to know who's going to answer a question than to get an off-the-cuff question and 4 Capts look at each other like "uhhhhh, you want to take it?" Better to have a prepared response than to stutter through an adhoc babbling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #8 October 17, 2005 dude, i already did that line. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #9 October 17, 2005 So it is better for politicians to only answer questions they want to answer and nothing to difficult only the questions they have stock answers for. I am hopping your joking.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #10 October 17, 2005 either that, or Bush is just a thick twat i'm sure we can see strings working him sometimes ! ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #11 October 17, 2005 <> - TeHe... If he was, then he'd be useful for at least one thing (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #12 October 17, 2005 Ah but you two are both in england where the perception of the international perception is a warped perception that causes you to percieve something which is obviously false. Bad limey. No tea and biscuits for you! TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,550 #13 October 17, 2005 QuoteAh but you two are both in england Wait -- doesn't that mean they're supposed to be our allies? WTF is with their dissing our leader? What kind of ally is that? They must not be real Brits. I'll bet there's some French blood in there Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #14 October 17, 2005 Wendy, you know how those Europeans are, the English and French might as well be the same country considering how in sync they are on most matters. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #15 October 17, 2005 >So it is better for politicians to only answer questions they want to >answer and nothing to difficult only the questions they have stock answers for. Of course it is better for them! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #16 October 17, 2005 <> shucks caught me True allies dont go for the .... My friends, right of wrong. I'd like to think(?) that we're more honest than that (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 October 17, 2005 <> - Bugger! and I s'pose no crumpets neither? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #18 October 17, 2005 I didn't say anything about WHAT questions were on the list, but WHO would answer them. Plus, knowing the bank of questions is indicative of EVERY leader in a similar situation. No one would ever allow a free-for-all, there is always some control. So no, this isn't really surprising and is actually relatively expected of any person from any country in a similar situation. All politicians do it, so who cares? Stop trying to drag Bush through the mud by complaining about something he does that EVERY politician does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #19 October 18, 2005 QuoteI didn't say anything about WHAT questions were on the list, but WHO would answer them. Plus, knowing the bank of questions is indicative of EVERY leader in a similar situation. No one would ever allow a free-for-all, there is always some control. So no, this isn't really surprising and is actually relatively expected of any person from any country in a similar situation. All politicians do it, so who cares? Stop trying to drag Bush through the mud by complaining about something he does that EVERY politician does. No need, is there. He's already covered in mud from the deficit, "faith-based intel" aka Iraqi WMDs, a piss-poorly planned war, the Plame affair, a stupid SC nomination, his wretched FEMA reorganization....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #20 October 18, 2005 WMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get in...b/c if you didn't notice, Saddam did not just let inspectors waltz right in. Thus, "faith-based" accusations are a bunch of bull and hold no water. We're winning the war, so how is it poorly planned? I agree all of us want to get the fuck out, but we can't until the Iraqi military/police are properly trained and properly performing to take care of their own country. Of course it's Bush's fault that some idiot in the Justice Dept dropped the ball. Everything is his fault after all. Care to elaborate on why Roberts was a stupid nomination? (I'm serious, I'd like to hear your opinion). FEMA is completely handcuffed by the bureaucracy of our system, but namely the states. LA dropped the ball bigger than anyone else, not that I'm saying FEMA didn't fuck up. Something needs to be done, yes. But things like this take some time, lighten up a bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #21 October 18, 2005 QuoteWMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get in...b/c if you didn't notice, Saddam did not just let inspectors waltz right in. Thus, "faith-based" accusations are a bunch of bull and hold no water. Your logic there isn't all that waterproof, itself. Let's take, for instance, some public figure whom you might support to some extent, one who has been the subject of an investigation of one sort or another. Perhaps the President, for instance, and maybe the 9/11 inquiry. Now, of course he had nothing to hide, right? Then, by your logic, he should've just let the Commission just "waltz right in," right? Is that, in fact, what happened? If not -- if he didn't let them just "waltz right in" -- then does that implicate that improprieties were obviously there? The fact is that just about anyone hates and resists when someone else is telling them what to do, shoving rules down their throat. Listen to a lot of what people in this forum have to say about other countries' (or, heaven forbid, the UN's) having input in the US's activities. It gets pretty vehement, actually. I'm not saying that there were absolutely no WMD's present, because we cannot know for sure. But I will contest the notion that WMD's absolutely were present, especially when supported by nothing but weak arguments (resistance to inspections, the fact that nothing's been found being evidence that it's being hidden , etc.). We just don't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #22 October 18, 2005 >WMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get >in... I think it's time to change to a more plausible narrative. Imaginary WMD's are so 2003! "Freeing the people of Iraq" is the latest rationale. >b/c if you didn't notice, Saddam did not just let inspectors waltz right in. >Thus, "faith-based" accusations are a bunch of bull and hold no water. Are you talking about your faith in WMD's being there or something else? Because faith is what you call it when you have no evidence - and there is no evidence. Just scare tactics. "Yeah, he had massive stores of WMD's, and weapons to use them in, and transports to get them out, but no working military. Then he took them all out of Iraq seconds before we invaded - because he would only use them on civilians, never as, you know, a weapon. They are now hidden now in the icy reaches of Antarctica where we will never ever find them - but they're there! Really! Can't find them? That's proof that they're hidden!" >We're winning the war, so how is it poorly planned? Yep! We were turning the corner in 2003, victory was certain in 2004, the insurgeny was in its last throes in 2005 . . . at this rate we will be winning for another decade. Thousands of US troops will die, of course, but who cares? We're WINNING! >I agree all of us want to get the fuck out, but we can't until the Iraqi > military/police are properly trained and properly performing to take >care of their own country. Hmm. When the civil war starts, which side will we be on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #23 October 18, 2005 QuoteWMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get in...b/c if you didn't notice, Saddam did not just let inspectors waltz right in. Thus, "faith-based" accusations are a bunch of bull and hold no water. ROFLMAO. You're not a member of the flat-earth society are you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #24 October 18, 2005 QuoteROFLMAO. You're not a member of the flat-earth society are you? Nah – he came to this conclusion after studying photographs of the empty warehouses where they found no WMD. He's conducted an in-depth investigation into the precise angles of the shadows in the boot print on the sandy floor concluding that since the shadow is at a slightly different angle to that of the sun the photographs must have been staged in a Hollywood studio. The real warehouses in Iraq are actually full of WMD but the left wing media won't print those photographs as it would make Bush look good. They only want to print the Hollywood fakes showing empty warehouses. Besides – it's a complicated camera and the astronauts wouldn't be able to operate the mechanisms well enough with their thick space gloves on... ...Damn! My bad; wrong conspiracy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,112 #25 October 18, 2005 QuoteWMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get in...b/c if you didn't notice, Saddam did not just let inspectors waltz right in. Thus, "faith-based" accusations are a bunch of bull and hold no water. I find it hard to conceive that you actually believe this. Remember Powell's "Mobile WMD labs" at the UN presentation, that turned out to be weather balloon base stations? Quote We're winning the war, so how is it poorly planned? I agree all of us want to get the fuck out, but we can't until the Iraqi military/police are properly trained and properly performing to take care of their own country. Ha ha. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech? Quote Of course it's Bush's fault that some idiot in the Justice Dept dropped the ball. Everything is his fault after all. Care to elaborate on why Roberts was a stupid nomination? (I'm serious, I'd like to hear your opinion). Who's mentioned Roberts? I refer to the latest fiasco where even his own party is against her. Quote FEMA is completely handcuffed by the bureaucracy of our system, but namely the states. LA dropped the ball bigger than anyone else, not that I'm saying FEMA didn't fuck up. Something needs to be done, yes. But things like this take some time, lighten up a bit. You missed the deficit. What's your excuse for record breaking deficits for years, reduced government revenues, and increased government spending? Bush IS an incompetent president and an embarrassment to the country.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
