was everything else real? could the US president and gang have staged this in Universal studios for the american public to whip up support for the Pres? And the soldiers are "extras" hired to give a sense of realism.?
Posted by art chan at December 6, 2003 12:17 PMSomething along the lines of 'Wag The Dog'? ;)
Posted by khalilur at December 6, 2003 12:34 PMWell it was a PR exercise, what else can we expect? In any case, Bush held the platter for like 30 seconds then put it down. It was a photoshot outing anyway.
Posted by chez1978 at December 6, 2003 12:50 PMImpeach him. What a heinous crime he has committed. I think this puts him on par with Hitler and Saddam himself in terms of crimes against humanity!!!
Posted by Observer at December 6, 2003 01:27 PMA Turkey shoot. More meat for Soros` battle versus Dubya.
Posted by hutchrun at December 6, 2003 01:28 PMJust 57,000 Americans were added to the payrolls last month. Will this tentative employment growth be enough to keep George Bush on the federal payroll next year?
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2278730
Posted by hutchrun at December 6, 2003 01:51 PMnot to mention having thanksgiving dinner at 6.00am where the soldiers were at.
http://www.counterpunch.com/madsen11282003.html
Posted by dJ phuturecybersonique at December 6, 2003 02:57 PMWhat's wrong with the turkey? A headline that I saw best sum it up with: "The turkey has landed".
Posted by mIChaeL fONg at December 6, 2003 04:45 PMOkay, so there is his stupid grinning face holding aloft a platter of beautiful brown turkey. My question is, was he ever in Baghdad, truly...or was that picture simply another PR exercise, taken somewhere in Texas and sold to the American and the whole gullible world as Baghdad?
Posted by oda at December 6, 2003 06:40 PMWhere' sthe proof for presidential assertions about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of unconventional weapons and his ability to threaten the United States.What about this: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html Gee, why not ask the Kurds whether Saddam Hussein ever had any WMD. I'm sure they'll agree that Saddam Hussein is a nice peaceful democratic man that loves the Kurds like his own brothers. Heck, he even allowed them to live in Arab cities like Kirkut and Mosul! /sacarsm Posted by rajan r at December 6, 2003 07:05 PM
Besides, you haven't said a single negative thing about the PR stunts the Democrats did, including Soros' pledge to prevent Bush from getting reelected. Somehow if Bush does something PR-related, it is bad. If his opponents does something PR-related, they're ingenious.
Uhm, besides, check out every single military blog stationed in Iraq - they all agree that it was a morale boost.
And what about Iraqi blogs? Hammorabi was slightly negative because it led to a downplay of the massive anti-terror demonstrations in Baghdad. Messopotamian was very grateful, while Healing Iraq was very unbeat about it. And what about River Bend, the most anti-Coalition of the Iraqi blogs? Well, she's the only one that is negative about the trip.
Heh.
oda: The the big question would be, "How did Bush get CNN and other media staff at Baghdad Airport to follow along?" and "How did Chalabi and Bremer, who was visible during the video shoot, get into Texas and out of it so fast without the detection of local and foreign media?"
Heh, can't answer that?
Something are fishy here. Iraq's turnkey is malnourished, cannot be as plump as the one on the platter that he is holding.
Posted by ahbeng at December 6, 2003 09:16 PMQUOTE: "Besides, you haven't said a single negative thing about the PR stunts the Democrats did, including Soros' pledge to prevent Bush from getting reelected. Somehow if Bush does something PR-related, it is bad. If his opponents does something PR-related, they're ingenious."
Just need to keyword search "Bush Baghdad Turkey" on Google News, you will over 1,000 entries which would tell WHO said WHAT abou WHOM.
This blogger - not known for being an American apologist - is merely putting events in context. He is not here to cast the stone on who is right or wrong.
Posted by Jeff Ooi at December 7, 2003 01:24 AMRajan R.:
You say that George Soros's plan to funnel money into defeating Bush is a PR stunt? Why? He's deadly serious, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with funding political such political efforts.
It's not deceptive or secretive, UNLIKE the Bush White House's constant PR stunts that are completely fake.
And for your information, the Republican Party has for decades funded efforts to remove Democrats from office. But they usually keep them secret. Don't you remember Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire who tried--but failed--to impeach and damage the Clintons? His money is all over the place.
Posted by travel 2165 in California at December 7, 2003 06:39 AM"Impeach him. What a heinous crime he has committed. I think this puts him on par with Hitler and Saddam himself in terms of crimes against humanity!!!..."
Ha Ha ! Good one Observer.
"And for your information, the Republican Party has for decades funded efforts to remove Democrats from office. "
Oh wow and the Democrats don't employ similar tactics? You're pathetic dude. What about those sluts who started claiming Arnie groped them, during his campaign, is it by any chance coincidence?
Posted by sudo_nim at December 7, 2003 07:39 AMLeft this out huh? :
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u;=/031127/481/dv12711272115
Here was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, in a combat zone on Thanksgiving day, serving chow to his soldiers.
Posted by wits0 at December 7, 2003 02:14 PMYou say that George Soros's plan to funnel money into defeating Bush is a PR stunt? Why? He's deadly serious, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with funding political such political efforts.Many rich men, from Bill Gates to the Rothchilds, have spent a lot of money on political campaigns. But somehow Soros is the only one that is advertising it so much. Besides, where is the money going? To buy ballots? They bribe election officials? Or rather, it is for campaign financing? Well, the answer is the last one. And what is the campaign all about? In two words: public relations.
It's not deceptive or secretive, UNLIKE the Bush White House's constant PR stunts that are completely fake.Oh yes. It is so deceptive and secretive. Wow. The only way to make this Bush trip work, for security reasons, for PR reasons and to really boost servicemen morale, is to make it a suprise. For servicemen it is really a morale boost. Why? Bush was flying in on a 747. A DHL cargo plane was just bombed by a ground-to-air missile by "insurgents", certainly for this PR stunt Bush did indeed risk his life.
And for your information, the Republican Party has for decades funded efforts to remove Democrats from office. But they usually keep them secret. Don't you remember Richard Mellon Scaife, the billionaire who tried--but failed--to impeach and damage the Clintons? His money is all over the place.If you look closely, every billionaire funds a certain party. It is only Soros that makes it public. Why? PR. Besides, I would have and I did support the impeachment of the Clintons. Why? It isn't so much because of the adultery (the person really suffering would be Hillary, not the rest of America), but his' denial of it. He lied in his testimony in a court of law after swearing to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He later on defended that lie. Who knows what else he lied? And while all that, he decided to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan - the only one in Sudan to deflect attention. Certainly, I'm not a big fan of Sudan's regime, but what did US gained from Sudanese being withhold from aspirins? And I'm glad you brought up the Clintons. The only thing they are good for is PR. I mean, Bill is tall, handsome and atriculate. Hillary is pretty, outgoing and walks with an aura, so to speak. Isn't that all PR? Man......
Jeff: Then at least mention the PR stunts Democrats do. They are politicians. The only politicians that wouldn't do something for PR-sake is a politician with no power and absolutely no hope of getting it. It is a sad human fact. Did you mention Hillary being in Iraq, giving speeches that contradicts what she says back in New York? Nope, I guess.
Oh, besides, shouldn't this be a bigger scandal? - CNN: Seven-year-old boy corrects Bush.
Posted by rajan r at December 7, 2003 02:32 PMrajan_r...
I am at absolute liberty to choose my blog topics and context.
What interests me at the moment is the de facto President of USA, his foreign policies and his administration's deeds.
Hillary is just a first-term senator. She will get my attention if she grows bigger in the future.
No, I fight no war for GOP or Democrats. The Americans have to deal with monsters of their own making. Certainly, not we Malaysians.
Again, this blogger is not noted for being an American apologist. Hence, I am detached from their political PR manoeuvres and antics.
Admittedly, this is where much of my pleasure is derived from.
Posted by Jeff Ooi at December 7, 2003 03:03 PMi don't get what's wrong with it. Being a president is all about acting the part. If everyone is up in arms about a toy turkey - i'd hate to imagine if y'all knew about everything else that has to happen in the white house to maintain the image of the President.
Highly recommended: WEST WING - a tv drama shown in US, NZ, AU, EU - available on Kazaa.
Is everyone really so gullible to believe everything they see? People react best to visual pointers and we are shown exactly what we want to see.
Posted by prema at December 7, 2003 03:53 PMRajan R:
If you lived in a nation where free campaigning and free speech were the norm, then you might understand that what Soros and others do is not PR but simply news. It's legal, and it's not a chest-thumping act. It happens all the time, and we all know about it.
Why is it PR when Soros announces his intention to defeat Bush, but not PR when the American Enterprise Institute, Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies and countless others publicize their contributions to Republicans? They are all quite public, even if the news media don't like to put them in headlines.
Mr Soros might be wealthy, but he can't buy headlines in the Murdoch and corporate media. They hate him, which is why they're trumpeting it. They want to ridicule him and keep others from doing the same as he is doing.
Posted by travel2165 at December 7, 2003 04:21 PMJeff Ooi: Don't get me wrong, but this whole "Turkeygate" scandal isn't at all a scandal. I mean, every president has done PR stunt since the invention of TVs, what's inheritly wrong with it?
I'm not saying that you should change your blog topics, or whatever. I'm not saying you should start agreeing with the war. Let's agree to disagree. But what I find rather unacceptable is that if the President of the US of A agreed with your foreign policy ideology yet pull off PR stunts similar in its intent, you won't really care.
just go a little back into history. When Bill Clinton was seeking reelection, the amount of PR stunts he pulled as President is far more that Bush himself (well, so far). The conservative press may ignore these PR stunts, but they certainly don't try to make a big deal out of it. A scandal of sorts.
travel2165: Are you alleging that all corporate media in the US is conservative-owned? Well, then, I guess CNN, NYT, WaPo, etc. are all small time players. Besides, when was the last time you have seen Bill Gates come out against the Clintons, or Larry Ellison against the Bushs? In public?
As for he not being able to buy headlines on Murdoch's newspapers, it was the headlines of StarNews Asia (Murdoch-owned), on FOX's site it was one of the headlines for hours, etc. Wow, that's an interesting spin to it.
Posted by rajan r at December 7, 2003 11:59 PMRajan R.
I must admit that I can't understand your arguments. In America, we speak of the "conservative corporate media elites" with justification.
If we had a truly liberal media, then why did all the major electronic and print media give support (really gung-ho support) to the blitz on Baghdad 24/7 with patriotic flags and headlines? Why no banner headlines and commentators opposing this invasion and attack?
If we had a truly liberal media, then why does every single media outlet refer to illegal Israeli occupied land with the cooked-up Israeli term "settlements"? Why do all the media refuse to even call them "illegal" and "occupied," which is what the U.N. has determined them to be?
If we had a truly liberal media, please name one major media conglomerate (Fox, NBC/General Electric, ABC/Disney/CNN, etc.) that dared to criticise Bush as a phony and a coward and a poser after his henchman warned the media that "You are either with us or against us"? The only media that were courageous enough to do that were in the U.K. (Independent and Guardian).
If we had a truly liberal media, please name one major media conglomerate that presses for universal national healthcare, which is perhaps THE major domestic issue?
And if we had a truly liberal media, why did the media spend nearly two years on issues of a president's sex scandals and almost no time at all on the Bush ties to corporate wealth, corruption and vote-buying? One man getting a blowjob from a fat woman in his office nearly brought the media to a standstill for two years. But one man and his henchmen (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice) can wage war against any nation at all and drop more bombs than in most previous wars... yet the media still flies the flag patriotically?
Those are the questions that your poor understanding of American political media can't grasp.
And don't get me started on the Clintons. You have a very strange understanding of what happened from 1992-2000 in my country. Clinton PR stunts during his re-election campaign in 1996 (and what were these 'stunts' that were ignored by the 'conservative' media?) VERSUS the stunts that the right-wing was engaging in throughout his presidency? Commentators who control our talk radio constantly referred to Bill and Hillary as "murderers" (Vince Foster's death), to Hillary as a femi-Nazi lesbian, to the Clinton administration as stealing FBI files (proven false), to Attorney General Janet Reno as a coward and lesbian, and to Al Gore as a compulsive liar... these were the highlights and headlines throughout the Clinton presidency.
Show me similar headlines (front-page headlines) about Cheney's corruption, about Bush's lying (with the actual word "lie"), about the stealing of the 2000 election (with the words "steal" and "uncounted votes), and about the combined Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations creating ZERO net jobs during their tenures ... well, then you can say that the media is "liberal." Until then, don't make me laugh.
And you completely misunderstood my comments about the media and Soros. Mr Soros cannot "buy" PR on Fox and Murdoch media. They eagerly cover him and his campaigns (in what you call his "stunts") because they want to make him look bad for opposing the president.
A "stunt" is something that manipulates and deceives. This word describes EXACTLY what the Bush team does so well in Iraq with the turkey and in San Diego on that warship. A "stunt" is not simply publicity.
Posted by travel2165 at December 8, 2003 02:27 PMIt's now been known for several days that this "turkey" was actually a plastic prop. The soldiers were forced to eat their Thanksgiving dinner at 7 a.m. just so the Prez could be accommodated. And they ate their usual military frozen-and-heated slop... NOT roast turkey.
A funny parody of the plastic turkey story is here: http://www.newshax.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=564
Here's your ultimate PR stunt, which now will backfire on the Bushies: The Repubs can't use the photo in the 2004 campaign without 260 million people (and the rest of the world) laughing their heads off.
Posted by travel2165 at December 10, 2003 03:52 AMDear Travel2165 u claim "...then why did all the major electronic and print media give support (really gung-ho support) to the blitz on Baghdad 24/7 with patriotic flags and headlines?..."
I watched the ongoings of the war in Iraq via CNN, never did I come across any 'flyings of the patriotic flag'....In fact, if u ask me, it is the foreign media like the BBC and the Guardian that is blatantly biased. I'm sure you've heard of the 'sexed up dossier' scandal involving BBC which resulted in David Kelly commiting suicide. C'mon, if that's not being biased what is? What about Al Jazeera's reporting during the war that was full of factual errors? And that's not being biased? Please don't even get me started on AP.
As for the analogy "You are either with us or against us"? ....whats wrong with that statement? How many Muslim countries did u see protesting when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq? What about the suicide bombings that's happening in Israel? How many Muslim countries vehemently denounce these cowardly acts? Oh but when the US occupies Iraq all of a sudden you see these hypocrites coming out of the woodworks denouncing the US! Clearly, the western nations (France,US,Germany...) are not taking sides but the Muslim nations are. If u ask me the US should get of the UN, a hypocritical organization thats only good for debating sessions.
Again..."why did the media spend nearly two years on issues of a president's sex scandals..."
Sex sells, it's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with the media being liberal or not. Show me a law prohibiting any American media company from reporting the truth. Wanna see media that has been reduced to being nothing but goverment mouthpieces, check out thestar online or nst.Even Jeff Ooi's weblog is subject to certain constraints! Did you hear of how Malaysiakini.com was shut down by the goverment for printing a 'seditious' letter? Give me an example of similar occurences in the US. I challenge u to do so!
BTW, lets not forget Paul Krugman from the New York Times. Nobody is as anti Bush administration as this guy and u dare say your media is not liberal.
Posted by sudo_nim at December 12, 2003 04:34 PMSudo... or should I call you "Pseudo"??
If you watched any U.S. television during the entire War on Iraq, you saw flags automatically placed in a corner of the TV screen, sometimes electronically waving in the wind.
The media were afraid NOT to fly the flag (something the BBC would never stoop to do with the Union Jack) because of the administration's warning "You are either for us or against us."
Immigrants throughout the U.S. felt compelled to fly U.S. flags on their automobiles or risk being targeted for criticism or even attacked. Yes, this happened. Conservataive radio talk-hosts even warned immigrants that they should be sure to fly the flag. I heard these warnings on my radio. Did you??
In a nation with a free press, the press should be neither for nor against anyone. One of the principles enshrined in the US Constitution is that the press must be able to function as an effective opposition voice to the government in power. There are checks and balances all over, and the press is a check on the government.
To warn the press that it should be "for us, not against us" is a veiled threat: Don't publish anything critical or negative, truth be damned.
Krugman is a distinctly LONE voice in the American print media. Show me a Chomsky who has a regular column. Show me Alexander Cockburn's regular column in a major outlet. Show me Michael Parenti's regular column in a major newspaper. Show me Jim Hightower's regular column (actually, he had a radio call-in show that was so good--and liberal--that it was yanked off the air by ABC before it was even a year old).
If you haven't heard of any or all of these liberal names (and hundreds of others), ask yourself WHY YOU DON'T. They are censored from being given a prominent voice; you can read them only on the Web. Surely they are not censored by the liberals who "control" our liberal media, right??? Hehehehe
Posted by travel2165 at December 16, 2003 04:32 AMAnd one more thing:
The CNN that you see in Asia and Europe is a DIFFERENT version of the CNN that we see in the U.S. There is an international CNN and a domestic CNN.
Please believe me when I say that domestic CNN (and Fox, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC) news coverage is significantly more jingoistic and flag-waving than what you see via international satellite editions.
Why do you think you didn't see the little American flag logos on every news screen of your international CNN? Flags waving electronically in the breeze... ?
Could it be because world opinion would have found it revolting and arrogant?
But here in the U.S., we were treated to this stunt 24/7 whenever the news was broadcast during the War on Iraq.
And if the media in America was "liberal", don't you think they WOULD have called it the "War on Iraq" or "Invasion of Iraq" rather than "Operation Freedom" or "War on Terrorism" or some other such blatantly right-wing theme?
Posted by travel2165 at December 17, 2003 07:53 AMblue plastic coffee
Posted by phentermine at February 16, 2004 06:27 AMYou have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours..
http://diets.bcure.com/
http://anabolic-steroid-information.healz.com/
http://anabolic-steroid.healz.com/
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)