Wash. Times editorial not convinced that soldiers appearing in Bush's Iraq teleconference were "coached"
In an October 17 editorial discussing the October 15 Iraqi constitutional referendum, The Washington Times criticized reporters for "fixat[ing] on reports that some of the soldiers who appeared had supposedly been coached by White House aides," in reference to the October 13 teleconference in which President Bush spoke with soldiers stationed in Iraq. But notwithstanding the Times' skepticism over whether the soldiers were in fact "coached," a pre-event rehearsal with deputy assistant secretary of defense for internal communications Allison Barber, which was accidentally broadcast, showed that the president's questions had been "scripted" in advance. The tape also showed some of the participating soldiers practicing their answers. And while Barber is technically not a "White House aide," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said at his press briefing later that day that the White House "worked very closely with the Department of Defense to coordinate this event."
As NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on the October 13 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, "The White House had said the exchange would be spontaneous, but there was something they did not expect you to see. The troops were coached on how to answer the commander in chief." Mitchell described the preparations as a "rehearsal":
BARBER (video clip): All right. But if he gives us a question that's not something that we've scripted, Captain Kennedy, you are going to have that mike, and that's your chance to impress us all. Master Sergeant Lombardo, when you're talking about the president coming to see you in New York, take a little breath before that so you can actually be talking directly to him. You got a real message there, OK?
MITCHELL: During today's rehearsal, Barber played the role of the president. Here's one of Mr. Bush's questions in the practice session.
BARBER (video clip): I'm interested in how your pre-election operations are going.
MITCHELL: And here is how it was repeated when the cameras were rolling with the president in place.
BUSH (video clip): Confident? I mean, how do you think feel like the operations are going?
MITCHELL: Here from the rehearsal is a soldier practicing his answer.
SOLDIER (video clip): We're working in northern Iraq right now with an operation that we call Operation Saratoga.
MITCHELL: And here's how it appeared on the broadcast.
SOLDIER (video clip): We're surging in an operation called Operation Saratoga.
The October 13 Associated Press reported part of Barber's pre-event exchange with the participating soldiers, indicating that the questions had been given in advance:
"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.
"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.
Adding to the event's highly scripted nature, the White House failed to disclose that one of the soldiers in the teleconference, Master Sgt. Corrine Lombardo, is a public affairs officer.
From the October 17 Washington Times editorial, headlined "Positive News from Iraq":
In this context, one of the more positive, thoughtful assessments of the progress we are making in training Iraqis to defend themselves came from 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy, who addressed a White House teleconference Thursday morning. While the press fixated on reports that some of the soldiers who appeared had supposedly been coached by White House aides, they ignored the more substantive news about progress being made in training Iraqi soldiers. Lt. Murphy said that, in contrast to the January election, where coalition forces did all of the security planning, it was the Iraqi soldiers who were responsible for all of the security on Saturday. Given how well things went, that is positive news indeed.
Soldiers coached? Imagine that. Bush had to pull another "Mission Accomplished." At least it was lower key; i.e. no cheesy top-gun stun, and Bush parading around in a flight-suit. It was just a teleconference this time. Still we know how much this adminstration likes criticism, so we can speculate on what would have happened if it hadn't been staged.
This is hiliarious as the press has the tape of an administration press official saying something like, "...if he asks a question we have not gone over, then ...". So, if this is not an admission of a rehearsal, then I would like to discuss what the definition of "is" is. The Times is pathetic. I could have pictures of Bush and Cheney killing babies with their autographs on it and pictures of them autographing the pictures while standing on dead babies and shaking my hand and the Times would dispute it. Christ the right wing if they want to deceive the public should do so on matters that aren't taped and
Haha!
Great minds think alike. I used the exact same "definition of 'is'" reference when discussing this topic with a conservative friend. It shut her up pretty good.
Great links everybody. Thanks for the info.
I am perplexed. When were the soldiers actually told what to say? All I've seen is what any media outlet does--whether it's FOX, CNN, ABC, they were just coaching people how to form the scene. I saw no coaching regarding the answers.
Please help me understand how this is relevant.
Thank you.
My understanding is that it was supposed to be spontaneous. Here's a good page for this topic.
[link to www.themoderatevoice.com]
Staged event
"Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo, who works in public affairs for the military as spokesperson to the media. Lombardo's role as a PR person was not disclosed to viewers as she participated in what appeared to be a "spontaneous conversation" with the president"
[link to www.prwatch.org]
Of course they weren't told what to say. The DoD only chose those soldiers who only had 100% positive things to say. Those who didn't display the DoD-approved attitude and enthusiasm were not invited.
The woman on the front row left was a DoD spokesperson. She doesn't train Iraqis or even go out and meet them. That's dangerous. She spends her time taking reporters to lunch. Another of the soldiers had a record of sending out emails in support of BushCo policies. The group was mainly officers rather than enlisted men.
I'm certain they all understood that it was important to rehearse the Q&A so that nothing would happen that would make Bush look bad -- just as it was important to exclude any serviceman that might have a difficult question or a bit of not-quite-so-positive news about Iraq. That's how complete and utter loyalty works.
lifelike:
Of the video portions I have seen, the amount of "coaching" emerges.
These soldiers were handpicked to begin with. They were chosen for their message and their adherence to the Administration's framing of how conditions should APPEAR.
In particular, the female soldier had been with Bush at the 9-11 bullhorn event. The Pentagon spokeswoman obviously knew exactly what the story was, how it would be presented, and offered only the further advice to "pause for effect" because "this is a story we want to promote (paraphrase)".
The issue, of course, was the meticulous effort to avoid any "surprises". There would be no spontaneity, no questions that might cause either side to go "off script".
This said, there were no "surprises" for the American people, either. It would be nice to have an open and engaging president who can think on his feet, and speak with wit and perhaps empathy. Instead we have a staged and scripted president who wanders from the strict direction of his handlers at his own peril.
So, if you're looking for open engagement and frank discussion, Bush is not your man. If you prefer tightly scriped and staged events which will have a "Home on the Range" guarantee that "never is heard a discouraging word", then Bush is your bot.
This has been a 'staged' presidency from the gitgo. The smirking chimp doesn't do spontaneous. Once he's off the script, he's in the weeds. He has trouble even when he's following a script. What is wrong with these morons? Mission Accomplished, Jessica Lynch, the canned 'news reports' pushing the BushCo agenda, Armstrong Williams. Don't they see a pattern here. The last 5 years have been one continuous infomercial. Can't they see a pattern here?
Sorry, should have proofed that one a little better!
It's been a five year neocon policy marketing campaign.
I really really wish they hadn't doubled my order.
"The last 5 years have been one continuous infomercial." -- rufus t firefly
-----
That is one of the best metaphors for this adminstration that I have heard. Just like an informercial, it is all hype for a crappy product.
And if you were to examine the product being hyped, you'd find a cheap, shoddy, foreign made piece of trash!
Kind of reminds me of the home shopping network show where they sell a collection of 100 pocket knives for 29.95.
Naturally, the MRC has jumped all over this...as evidence of liberal "bias". Here's their argument of how it wasn't "scripted" or "staged";
[link to www.mrc.org]
"This article is a follow-up to a Friday CyberAlert item: Thursday's NBC Nightly News led, yes led, with how, as anchor Brian Williams put it, President Bush had that morning conducted "a staged event" via satellite with ten U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi soldier in Iraq. "Today's encounter was billed as spontaneous," Williams intoned. "Instead, it appeared to follow a script." Andrea Mitchell warned that "the troops were coached on how to answer the Commander-in-Chief" and, indeed, not until two minutes into her three-minute story -- after showing clips of how a DOD official had told the soldiers the questions Bush would ask -- did Mitchell note how "the White House and at least one of the soldiers says the troops weren't told what to say, just what the President would ask." So, the answers were not staged. The soldiers, naturally nervous about appearing on live TV with the President of the United States, were simply told who should answer which question and to "take a breath" before answering. Scandalous! ABC's World News Tonight also devoted a full story as did the CBS Evening News on which Lara Logan uniquely showcased a soldier who denied any phoniness. CNN's Situation Room dedicated a full story to the "highly rehearsed" event"
Williams, of course, is correct;it was billed as spontaneous, and it did appear to follow a script. As for the canard of "they weren't told what to say therefore it wasn't staged", that logic is faulty for two reasons. First, it's hard to imagine why they would have to be told what to say. Do we really think they can't find 10 soldiers who won't criticize the war or Bush? Second, being told the questions ahead of time does make a difference! If you give people time to formulate their answers you help to insure that they won't accidentally say something that is ambiguous and can be taken the wrong way. MRC also fails to note (as far as I see) that one of the soldiers was a PR flack. In a supposedly spontaneous, legitimate conversation, why would there need to be a PR flack present? Also it should be noted that even Bush's seemingly off-the-cuff comments about seeing that flack in NY previously were planned, as the rehearsal showed.
(continued)
"Over on CNN's American Morning, co-host Miles O'Brien insisted to Major General Rick Lynch in Iraq that the participating soldiers were "coached." Though Lynch repeatedly denied the soldiers were told what to say, O'Brien stuck to his claim they were "coached," citing how the Pentagon official told them, "here's what he's going to say, here's what you might want to say in response, right?" Lynch maintained that "those soldiers yesterday were giving their opinion." To which an oblivious O'Brien replied: "Well, I guess it's too bad, if that's true, that people would have another impression this morning, because of the way they were coached." But the best O'Brien could come up with was how the Pentagon's Allison Barber suggested how to segue to another soldier for an answer and that "a few smiles wouldn't hurt back here on the TV." When news reader Carol Costello wondered: "Is anything spontaneous in politics, really? I don't think so," O'Brien heralded a left-winger: "Jeez. Dennis Kucinich, maybe?" O'Brien also had the gall to contend that "truth be told, if they were not coached, they would have said things that the administration would have liked to hear, I'm convinced. Because they are, you know, these troops are gung ho about their mission. And so it's a shame that they have cast this cloud."...That's chutzpah given it was O'Brien and the media which cast the "cloud.""
O'Brien may be wrong to use the word "coached" so much. If they were indeed told "here's what you might want to say in response" then he would be right (if someone knows, please respond), but otherwise being told to smile and take a breath before answering is hard to criticize. However, O'Brien's "oblivious" comment is true, because that is the impression people are left with, as he reiterated with the "gall" comment. Perhaps the MRC is so angered by O'Brien's words because they strike to the heart of the issue;if the opinions of the soldiers are genuine, why was a rehearsal necessary? Why did they have to be told the questions in advance? Why did there have to be PR present? Naturally some coordination is necessary, and giving some pointers as to help the troops relax and look good on TV is perfectly understandable, but after that it looks horrible. As for "chutzpah", this is the typical tactic of blaming the messenger. I guess if nobody reports the story, then no cloud would be cast;that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate story, or that it was misrepresented in any way. What the MRC doesn't want to face up to, as much as they seem to take umbrage at the description, is that this is truly "embarrassing" for Bush. And that's their own fault, not the Media's.
Completely staged, somewhat coached, or even completely spontaneous, this event should never have happened. People should be angry that it was so clearly unnecessary and a PR stunt. Aren't we sick of all the Bush PR stunts yet? Isn't that what we should be yelling about? It falls into line with the rest of the PsyOps these sicktards have been pulling on the American People. The degree to which this was staged/scripted is somewhat debatable. That it was an unnecessary PR stunt, strictly done for the benefit of the image of this administration, is obvious.
Of course it was staged. One dead giveaway is when Bush tries to interject a presumably "spontaneous" question to the woman who was present in New York, and she just keeps trudging along with her scripted answer.
Berber (or Barber or whatever her name is) should have spent her time coaching Bush. Let's just say that the troops weren't coached (and they were) it is still an embarassing performance by Bush. He is obviously reading from cards, not really listening to the troops, and then acting (badly) like he talking off the top of his head.
I'd be ashamed if I voted for this Potemkin administration.
No doubt it was staged.
But one could POINT out other "staged events" by other Presidents or political candidates.
Politics is, after all, one long photo-op and numerous staged events. So what? Only a moron doesn't realize what they are viewing isn't a spontaneous, unscripted moment.
Did that President just happen to come across "those stones" on "that beach" that day in Normandy and arrange the stones into a cross? Or were those stones "placed" there ahead of time? This President had never been a favorite with the Military...was this staged event a way to reach out to those soldiers for some kind of approval? Respect?
Did that candidate just happen to go Duck Hunting for sport&relaxation...BUT make sure the Press was there to document it to show those gun owners he was just one of the boys?
How "staged" was the President&First Lady dancing on the beach, so so in love....around the time HE was preparing for his deposition in the Paula Jones case.
The "event" Bush&the soldiers staged was embarrassing to watch....
MOST political staged events are.
BUT I think MOST of us know when we're being "played".
jeter:
You seem to be confusing "photo op" with an event that is staged but advertised as being "spontaneous" (the White House's word).
Of course we all know that public figures will from time to time put on a photo op. This is supposedly to "build their image".
The STAGED (and scripted) event that is ballyhooed as "spontaneous" involves three troubling aspects (while the photo-op is often just tacky, but not troubling).
One, it involves manipulating people to say only what you WISH them to say; they are being "USED".
Two, it is an attempt to sway public opinion on a matter of public policy, by portraying a one-sided set-up stage show as both THE TRUTH and the unanimous position of "everybody out there".
Three, it involves lying, by saying that it is spontaneous when it is not.
I appreciate that, at every opportunity, Rightwingers want to set up an "EQUIVALENCE" to any Republican's behavior to Clinton's behavior, but does this have the desired effect? After all, if you say Bush is just doing what Clinton did, are we supposed to forget that you rightwingers loathed and despised everything Clinton did? You really want to say you view Bush in the same light as Clinton, by making such comparisons? LOL
"You seem to be confusing "photo op" with an event that is staged but advertised as being "spontaneous" (the White House's word).
Of course we all know that public figures will from time to time put on a photo op. This is supposedly to "build their image".
The STAGED (and scripted) event that is ballyhooed as "spontaneous" involves three troubling aspects (while the photo-op is often just tacky, but not troubling)."...by tex
============
tex, not confusing anything...just giving a QUICK review of Politics101. Which simply put is: staged events&photo-ops.
--------------
"I appreciate that, at every opportunity, Rightwingers want to set up an "EQUIVALENCE" to any Republican's behavior to Clinton's behavior, but does this have the desired effect? After all, if you say Bush is just doing what Clinton did, are we supposed to forget that you rightwingers loathed and despised everything Clinton did? You really want to say you view Bush in the same light as Clinton, by making such comparisons? LOL"...by tex
===============
Relax tex, I simply used Clinton...and Kerry (he was the duck hunter) because those THREE "staged events" came to mind. I suppose I could google up dozens of other examples from BOTH sides if I were so inclined...I'm not.
Did I SAY anywhere in MY post they were "equivalent"???? Nope. Just giving examples for the folks here of OTHER staged events...you aren't disputing they were staged are you?
As far as me "loathing" Bill Clinton...tex, YOU&I have been around THIS subject BEFORE...but I'll remind you...I have said on MORE than ONE occasion HERE that I liked&respected Bill Clinton. Thought he was a good President. Did NOT agree with the way the Far Right attacked&smeared him.
My POST was simply to point out that "staged events"& photo-ops" are part of politics. Don't forget tex, it's POLICY that's IMPORTANT...we just have to put up with the "politics" to get any policy done.
I saw Bush's staged event... and as YOU MIGHT REMEMBER I was not in favor of the invasion/war with Iraq...this "staged event" did NOTHING to change my mind...and I strongly DOUBT that any other opinions were swayed. No harm. No foul.
It's politics tex...nothing to get too worked up about.
jeter:
Fair enough. To your "politics is always there" thesis, I added the aspect of separating simple photo ops from more serious attempts to sway the public. Our posts stand.
jeter2 - Tuesday October 18, 2005 02:27:58 PM EST
The difference is how many of those 'staged' events you mention were specifically said by those staging them to be spontaneous? How often did they tell an outright LIE about whether or not they were staged?
"Politics is, after all, one long photo-op and numerous staged events. So what? Only a moron doesn't realize what they are viewing isn't a spontaneous, unscripted moment."
-----
Actually, only a moron would think that Bush would do an event that wasn't staged. But that is besides the point. It was the White House that said it was a spontaneous event, they lied and this is just part of the pattern: screening townhall meetings, staged press conferences, buying pundits, lying to reporters as anonymous sources, cherry picking evidence, blaming everyone else, and the constant spinning and lying and more lying. Is it too much to ask that our president be truthful at least part of the time?
It is the conservatives that should be outraged, they are the ones being lied to, they were the ones fooled into voting for him.
Staged? - most likely.
But when the soldiers were asked if anything they asked or said was something other than what they really felt or meant, they responded; No.
What else would they say?
nerzog,
The point would not to be to try and convince you of anything positive coming out of Iraq - you will have none of it.....don't worry.
I don't mind hearing about the positive; it's their covering up the negative that is so troubling.
I don't mind hearing about the positive; it's their covering up the negative that is so troubling. -- nerzog
-----
Exactly!
"But when the soldiers were asked if anything they asked or said was something other than what they really felt or meant, they responded; No." -- Tommy
-----
So what? They said it was sponaneous, it wasn't. It was scripted, it was staged, it was a farce. They wanted YOU to think that they president was just having a chat with some of his buds. It was propaganda.
I'm just amazed at the constant excuses we hear for this corrupt administration. Bush could be found with a 14 year old boy and the conservatives would all of a sudden be pro nambla.
Wasn't it the right wingers who were SO indignant when it was learned that a soldier and a reporter consulted on a question the soldier was going to ask Rumsfeld re: vehicle armor.
They all screamed and moaned about how the question was STAGED. But this, they don't care about. Go figure.
by rjc
-----
Good point!
"But when the soldiers were asked if anything they asked or said was something other than what they really felt or meant, they responded; No." -- Tommy
------
Attorneys routinely anticipate that the proscutor will ask the client if they discussed certain testimony with their attorney. The attempt is to either catch someone overcoached in a lie ("NO"), or to suggest that his responses are staged and not candid, having been given answers by his attorney.
Attorneys will anticipate this, and instruct their clients to say, "YES" when asked if the attorney supplied any advice on answering questions. "He told me to tell the Truth."
This defuses the implication that the witness was coached. Of course, it's also a prime example of coaching.
["If anyone asks you if your words and feelings were OTHER than your own, say 'NO'." ... Response; "Yes, Sir."]
When that soldier "ambushed" Defense Secretary Rumsfeld with the question about soldiers having to pull scrap armor out of the junkyard to protect their vehicles, the Rightwing became outraged that it was possible the soldier was "given" the question by a member of the press. Unfair! Foul!, they screamed, the press had intruded on an off-limits forum!
The message now is clear. The Press ... those charged with getting answers for WE, THE PEOPLE, have no business asking questions. ONLY THE ADMINISTRATION can control the message going out to the American People.
A dictatorship needs to be neither fair, open, nor evenhanded. The sooner the press learns this, the better.
Here's one big difference. Those staged events you mentioned weren't done to justify the deaths of almost 2000 American soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians, and over 200 billion wasted American dollars. In fact, I'd say that Clinton's little stone-stacking episode cost us very little.
"No doubt it was staged.
But one could POINT out other "staged events" by other Presidents or political candidates."
Ugh, I'm getting sick of this rationale from everyone that uses it. Ofcoarse others have done it. That doesn't mean we should continue to accept it. It only means we should be vigilant in our efforts to address it no matter where it comes from or who's doing it. This "Well yeah he did it, but so did so and so" is just silly as a justification. We weren't allowed to get away with that as kids ("If Johnny jumped of a bridge, would you?"). Why do we allow it now for our politicians and political debates?
"Politics is, after all, one long photo-op and numerous staged events. So what? Only a moron doesn't realize what they are viewing isn't a spontaneous, unscripted moment."
It doesn't take a moron to be deceived by these events, that's why they happen. If everyone could easily determine it was a pathetic piece of propaganda, it would have no worthy affect.
Most political events are staged, but let's just get to the point here. This one event doesn't matter and to be fair in and of themselves all these type of events do not matter. What matters is the willingness of administration to lie about the facts of a situation regardless of the evidence. That's what a lot of our right wing friends are not addressing. Tommy's theories about Iraq sponsoring attacks on us has nothing to do with the realities of the situation. Countless commissions and investigation has shown we have been lied to on a regular basis. And even when the evidence is presented to them the administration has acted as if the have do nothing wrong. This is terrifying on many levels first that this administration would willfully lie to us so blatantly. Or second and even more scary that they are so disassociated from fact and reality that they believe the non-facts they are spewing which is more dangerous than 9-11, Iraq, and Katrina put together. If the right is this far gone we should all be afraid, very afraid, of their madness.