19 October 2005


First, AP reports that "Bush Thanks Soldiers in Rehearsed Talk." Then, one of those soldiers calls them to task. Have you ever been in the uncomfortable situation where an impassioned individual attempts to defend their belief? Get ready.

First, after several repetitions in bold naming who was asking the questions (the President...), the seargent insisted that in fact "we" prepared ideas on what to discuss--that "we" could either mean the group of soldiers or the group of interviewer and interviewees, not sure--he then continued, insisting that since the President is doing the interviewing, he should define the talking points. So, to recap: it wasn't controlled, but it needed to be controlled because he's the President. Got that? When the President obsessively controls the audience in every talk and town hall meeting, someone needed to call bullshit on a fake heart-to-heart with the troops. I've expressed my admiration before to the way that British politicians allow the public almost completely un-mediated access during talks, opening themselves up to fierce and often incisive criticism. Our politicians are pussies and the military, above all, should call them on it.

He then complains that the media is trying to [use their] freedom to try to RIP DOWN the President and our morale, as US Soldiers. This is such and old complaint: whenever public discussion stops being patriotic (unless you're a Republican bitching about a Democratic leader) you're abusing free speech.

The question I was most asked while I was home on leave in June was, "So...What's REALLY going on over there?" Does that not tell you something?! Who has confidence in the media to tell the WHOLE STORY?

So, the administration hides information on the war to a degree only paralleled in red-scare-era communism, and it's the media who's hiding something.

Yesyes, I understand the difficult situation that soldiers are in over there, and I've also read of many of their reversals when they get home and have regained the luxury of being able to question questionable motives. For that, the guy definitely needs to be cut some slack (even though this is a public forum he's in).

[ posted by sstrader on 19 October 2005 at 1:34:02 PM in Politics ]