Anyone else disturbed by some of the things the Bush campaign has been doing in their latest media blitz?
First, they may or may not beusing taxpayer money to fund what are essentially Bush campaign ads. The GAO certainly thinks the ads are at least misleading, even if they aren't illegal.
In those ads, they use fake news reporters to extoll the benefits of the new Medicare legislation. A HHS official defended their actions with this somewhat disturbing comment:
Quote:The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools.
Then, they used fake firefighters in commercials reminding voters of 9-11.
I don't know what's going on in the Bush campaign, but stuff like this is going to alienate voters if he isn't careful. I don't know how this is playing with the undecided voters, but the conservatives are starting to get very upset about these tactics. And disillusioned supporters tend not to get out to the voting booths on election day.
The New York Times is a useless leftist rag that forces you to register and even then wants you to pay to see articles only a few days old.
And the firefighter thing was even corrected at the bottom of the article -
Quote:Editor's Note: In our initial reporting for this story, we were told by a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's media team that paid actors had been used to portray firefighters in its first election ads, which drew heavily on images from 9/11. After publication, the official told us that he had been mistaken. The Bush-Cheney campaign also provided NEWSWEEK with documents indicating that the people in the ads were authentic volunteer firefighters, not actors. gnmish.gearbinder.ring.warden.sullon.zek
'Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest... Honestly.'
Even if they did use real firefighters in that commercial, plenty of Bush staffers were quick to defend the practice. Besides, one guy from the campaign said they were fake, another said they weren't. There seems to be some confusion one way or the other.
Quote:and in Return of the Jedi they used FAKE EWOKS!!! /sigh
Well sneer if you want, but I'm uncomfortable with this trend. I'd like to think the cynics aren't completely correct in their beliefs that there are no ethics left in politics. These are the kind of stories you read about in Alberto Fujimori's Peru, or in Thaksin Shinwatra's Thailand, not in the US.
we know he had the weapons, because he killed a few hundred thousand kurds with them, and a few hundred thousand Iranians, not to mention the 10's of thousands of upstarts after desert storm....
I think that if you're going to use the argument that Iraq not only possessed WMDs, and also was an immediate threat to the US and the world because of them, then you better damn well find evidence of their existance.
So far the Bush administration has only backpedaled to a stance that Iraq may have had them at one time or another, or at least they were persuing a goal of having them, or maybe they dreamt about having them last Tuesday night, etc.
If the whole WMD issue and Iraq's immediate threat to the world is your justification for invading a country, killing people, both soldiers on both sides and civilians collaterally, you better damn well have something in the end to back up your reasons for invading.
If Bush et al had put forth the fact that Hussein is an evil mother-@#%$ and his regime commits war crimes against his own his own people and his neighbors, and that cleansing that cancer from the world and giving the people freedom and some form of democracy, then great, I can support that. It's based on truth and principles that I can believe in.
HOWEVER, that is not THE justification that was given. That is simply now the backpedaling, "Well yeah we've found no WMDs but..." routine. Edited by: Emmrys at: 3/18/04 11:59 am
Quote:Iraq may have had them at one time or another, or at least they were persuing a goal of having them,
You do remember the little holocaust that happened under Hussein's regime? The one where he gassed a whole town? The president at the time didn't seem to care to much one way or another.
And I'm not a Republican before that gibberrish starts flying again, just a loather of Hussein.
Yeah, he gassed a whole town with weapons WE GAVE HIM. He didn't develop them on his own, and our president didn't care because we were good buddies with Saddam.
Um, and yes...I do honestly believe they didn't have weapons. I'll believe otherwise when I see proof.
No one is going to argue that he didn't have WMDs ten years ago, the receipts ought to be in the George Bush Presidential Library, but why is that at all relevant now?
people acted like GW convinced the world that Iraq had WMDs, hell 1/2 the world thought he had WMDs,
like I said before he convinced the world he had a gun in his pocket and might shoot someone with that gun, we asked him to look in his pocket, he said no, we knocked him out and found he had no gun in his pocket.
and Kriz I tend to believe if we find a 10 mile long secret WMD lab in Iraq SOME people will say we put it there to make GW look better.....
"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"
skewerzjoo:
Quote:we know he had the weapons, because he killed a few hundred thousand kurds with them, and a few hundred thousand Iranians, not to mention the 10's of thousands of upstarts after desert storm....
Wrong, wrong, wrong. First off, where are you getting all these numbers from, other than your rear end? Second off, thsoe first two events happened before Desert Storm, when he had those weapons supplied thanks to the U.S. and sanctioned by President HW Bush. Thirdly, the Kurdish gassing was actually Iranian. The Iranian deaths were in a war, both sides used chemical weapons. The suppression of the post-Desert Storm revolution didn't involve any WMD. And besides which, the U.S. is just as much at fault for those deaths, considering we encouraged them saying we'd support a revolution, even having military forces waiting at the border, but then left them to be squashed. Great move on our part. But when we need to invade, we'll use that as an excuse.
Nocte:
Quote:You do remember the little holocaust that happened under Hussein's regime? The one where he gassed a whole town? The president at the time didn't seem to care to much one way or another.
Again, it was Iranian, not Iraqi, gas. But don't worry, you don't have to be Repulbican to be fooled by their propaganda.
joekreeper:
Quote:people acted like GW convinced the world that Iraq had WMDs, hell 1/2 the world thought he had WMDs,
Well, it wouldn't have been an issue if GW hadn't brought it up in the first place. It's not like the threat got that much more imminent. Which it never was in the first place.
Quote:like I said before he convinced the world he had a gun in his pocket and might shoot someone with that gun, we asked him to look in his pocket, he said no, we knocked him out and found he had no gun in his pocket.
Besides the fact that this totally ignores the way diplomacy works (he needed to convince his neighbors of that to prevent their fooling around with his nation), it's a bogus analogy anyway, because you're neglecting the fact that he never said he'd attack anyone, just defend himself. Second off, you don't kill 10,000 innocent civilians just because one man may have a gun but isn't threatening people with it.
Due diligence: A standard we should be able to hold our representatives to. Even congressmen. Kerry voted for action in Iraq, and holds just as much responsibility as bush does. He was convinced by the same evidence that convinced those with an (R) after their name.
As much as I hate to derail this spectacular derail...
Quote:Umm, they provided Newsweek with documents proving they were real firefighters. I don't think there is any confusion.
Well, if this is the case, then bully for them. That was the least unethical thing I posted about. What about releasing the fake news reports without making it very clear that they were government-produced news packs? And what about the fact that they are using taxpayer money to make "voter education" ads on Medicare, which are borderline partisan?
On the re-run of the Daily Show today, John Stewart joked that they got the ideas from their handbook, and showed a copy of the book "1984." That really seems to be a pretty good comparison. Let's just hope that this stuff was just a huge blunder by an over-eager junior staffer.
Thanks, Hord - I was hoping this wouldnt turn into another token "Safehouse Iraq Policy" board. Not that I didnt enjoy the first 50,000... its just that even when you hear well argued and thought out opinions 5,000 times each it gets redundant.
Campaign strategy ppl, not Iraq. Iraq's been argued to death. The next person to bring it up gets "bonk"ed.
Sorry about that. I have all these subscriptions through work, and didn't realize you had be subscribed to get the links to work.
First story - Quote:A Watchdog Sees Flaws In Bush's Ads On Medicare
Robert Pear. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 11, 2004. pg. A.26
The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that advertisements and brochures prepared by the Bush administration to publicize a new Medicare law, although not illegal, misrepresented the prescription drug benefits that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people.
The fliers and advertisements do not violate restrictions on the use of federal money for ''publicity or propaganda purposes,'' but they are flawed by ''omissions and other weaknesses,'' said the legal opinion by Anthony H. Gamboa, general counsel of the accounting office.
For example, Mr. Gamboa said, the administration did not point out that beneficiaries might be charged up to $30 for drug discount cards that become available in June. Likewise, he said, the administration incorrectly suggested that the law set a premium of $35 a month for drug coverage, beginning in 2006. That amount, he said, is only an estimate and ignores the penalties that could be imposed on people who delay enrolling.
The administration plans to spend more than $22 million on the advertisements and brochures, which publicize drug benefits, new coverage for preventive health services and new insurance options. Medicare officials said the advertisements and fliers were a way to educate beneficiaries, as the law requires.
Democrats said the advertisements were campaign commercials for President Bush, who has taken credit for delivering drug benefits long promised by lawmakers of both parties.
The accounting office said the multimedia campaign did ''not violate the prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda, because the Department of Health and Human Services has explicit authority to inform Medicare beneficiaries'' about the changes. Moreover, it said, the materials ''are not so purely partisan as to be unlawful, in light of our prior decisions and opinions.''
The flier is being sent to all 41 million Medicare beneficiaries. The administration has already revised parts of the leaflet that the Democrats have criticized. For example, it has deleted a section on tax-free savings accounts that can be used to pay medical expenses.
An earlier version of the flier told beneficiaries, ''If you are happy with the Medicare coverage you have, you can keep it exactly the same.'' The last three words of that sentence have been deleted. Democrats had complained that some beneficiaries would have to pay more for existing coverage and might be forced into managed care plans.
Since its creation more than 80 years ago, the accounting office has issued thousands of authoritative decisions on the legality of federal spending. Nine Congressional Democrats, led by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, asked it to review the advertisements.
Mr. Lautenberg welcomed the report as confirmation of his view that the materials were misleading.
''The G.A.O. agreed with us that the administration sugarcoats the drug discount cards and overstates the benefits of the prescription drug plan,'' he said.
Mr. Kennedy said the report confirmed that money from the Medicare trust fund was being used for advertisements full of errors and omissions.
''The more senior citizens learn about the bill,'' he said, ''the less they like it.''
But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said the report showed the administration was ''following the spirit and letter of the law.''
Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, said, ''We are encouraged that the G.A.O. has affirmed our efforts to educate seniors.''
He promised to continue providing ''fact-based information.''
In a letter to all beneficiaries, Mr. Thompson says that the new law made ''some of the most significant improvements to the program since its inception in 1965.'' The flier gives credit to Mr. Bush and Congress. The accounting office said that statement was acceptable because it simply described ''the constitutional process for enacting legislation.''
The advertising theme is ''same Medicare, more benefits,'' and the flier says the new law ''preserves and strengthens'' Medicare.
Although those messages are political and may look like an effort to persuade the public, they are not ''purely partisan'' and therefore do not violate the ban on propaganda, the accounting office said.
But the office said the new law, rather than preserving and strengthening Medicare, might increase its long-term financial problems.
Second story - Quote:.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 15, 2004
ASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.
Advertisement
The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.
The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.
Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.
Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."
The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."
In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."
The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.
Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law.
In a report to Congress last week, the lawyers said those fliers and advertisements were legal, despite "notable omissions and other weaknesses." Administration officials said the television news segments were also a legal, effective way to educate beneficiaries.
Gary L. Kepplinger, deputy general counsel of the accounting office, said, "We are actively considering some follow-up work related to the materials we received from the Department of Health and Human Services."
One question is whether the government might mislead viewers by concealing the source of the Medicare videos, which have been broadcast by stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.
Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.
Kevin W. Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said there was nothing nefarious about the television materials, which he said had been distributed to stations nationwide. Under federal law, he said, the government is required to inform beneficiaries about changes in Medicare.
"The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."
But Democrats disagreed. "These materials are even more disturbing than the Medicare flier and advertisements," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "The distribution of these videos is a covert attempt to manipulate the press."
Mr. Lautenberg, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and seven other members of Congress requested the original review by the accounting office.
In the videos and advertisements, the government urges beneficiaries to call a toll-free telephone number, 1-800-MEDICARE. People who call that number can obtain recorded information about prescription drug benefits if they recite the words "Medicare improvement."
Documents from the Medicare agency show why the administration is eager to advertise the benefits of the new law, on radio and television, in newspapers and on the Internet.
Advertisement
"Our consumer research has shown that beneficiaries are confused about the Medicare Modernization Act and uncertain about what it means for them," says one document from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Other documents suggest the scope of the publicity campaign: $12.6 million for advertising this winter, $18.5 million to publicize drug discount cards this spring, about $18.5 million this summer, $30 million for a year of beneficiary education starting this fall and $44 million starting in the fall of 2005.
"Video news releases" have been used for more than a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have done particularly well with them, producing news-style health features about the afflictions their drugs are meant to cure.
The videos became more prominent in the late 1980's, as more and more television stations cut news-gathering budgets and were glad to have packaged news bits to call their own, even if they were prepared by corporations seeking to sell products.
As such, the videos have drawn criticism from some news media ethicists, who consider them to be at odds with journalism's mission to verify independently the claims of corporations and governments.
Government agencies have also produced such videos for years, often on subjects like teenage smoking and the dangers of using steroids. But the Medicare materials wander into more controversial territory.
Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, expressed disbelief that any television stations would present the Medicare videos as real news segments, considering the current debate about the merits of the new law.
"Those to me are just the next thing to fraud," Mr. Kovach said. "It's running a paid advertisement in the heart of a news program."
Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article. Hodur Wisepaw - Oracle
iran gassed the kurds , iran gassed the irany soliders by mistake , he didn't have gas
and iraq never devolep anything , hell he didn't have hand guns in iraq , all this weapons you are see'ing in iraq nowdays are propoganda from the american scums !
The commercial from Bush I hate the most is the one where, he claims that tossing parts of the patriot act will lead to more terrorist acts. Forget how the patriot act has shredded what this country really stands for.
Quote:The commercial from Bush I hate the most is the one where, he claims that tossing parts of the patriot act will lead to more terrorist acts. Forget how the patriot act has shredded what this country really stands for.
Ok Lilum, you want to have some criticism of the Patriot act, thats fine. You could discuss how a the laws surrounding a particular part of it worked pre-patriot act, and then show how the act has changed it, and why you feel that that change was bad, and needs to be undone. Thats an intelligent discussion that one could deal with.
Instead, we get third rate hysterics about how it has "Shredded what this country really stands for." Woe is me, {insert wailing and gnashing of teeth here.}
Actually I have long despised the glossing over of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. Read up on the prison ships and death rates associated with them.
And Shatner wasn't that bad in Miss Congeniality, though he was supposed to be schlocky.
The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Law Project, a human rights advocacy group based in Los Angeles that brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds’ campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge’s ruling said the law, which was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, did not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.
“The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature,” the judge said.
Quote:iran gassed the kurds , iran gassed the irany soliders by mistake , he didn't have gas
(rest of Shehab's message)
Quote:kuwait GAVE their country to Iraq then kuwait shot scuds at Tel Aviv!!
Alas, when the opposition provides proper evidence, it's best to launch into hysterics and create many a ********.
Let's not forget that Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so. Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion. Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up. Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.
No, no, Kuwait and the US were not the innocent sheep attacked by a random wolf. Not at all.
Was Saddam a bad man? Yes. Was he led into some of his exploits by foreign influences? Yes. Was he worth killing 10,000 more civilians and igniting the world? No.
Quote:Let's not forget (rest of lets not forget crap )
okay want a point by point answer here it come
Quote:Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so
OMG its not like all the freaking borders in arabic were planed by the britis , hell the first monarchy in iraq was installed by them also , sudan , qatar , bahrain , UAE , saudi , iraq , sryia , lebanon , israel , jordan , egypt , oman , and yemen were all made countries beacse of of britian , read world history
Quote:Though internally Kuwait was enjoying peace and prosperity, there were forces outside that caused great concern to the rulers. Pirates ranged freely along the Arabian coast. The Persians had taken Basra to the north. The Ottomans threatened from the northeast, and various Arab tribes from the west and south.
The British dominated trade in the area by that time, and the Kuwaitis saw that they were thus their natural allies. As early as the 1770s, Amir Abdullah I contracted with Britain to deliver mail between the Gulf and Aleppo in Syria. By the end of the century, Kuwait handled virtually all trade in the Gulf, including trans-shipments to India, and was the keystone of the overland route to the Mediterranean.
Prosperous commerce continued throughout the 1800s. In 1841, the British attaché reported that Kuwait was a free port, carrying on extensive import and trans-shipment business in textiles, rice, coffee, sugar, wheat, tobacco, fruits, spices, teak, and mangrove. Ships plied routes throughout the Gulf, as well as east to India and west to Africa. There were also many caravan links to the interior of Arabia.
Quote:Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion
made up statment by iraq , nothing to back it up , we can't produce over 2 milion barriel , we can't flood the market with extra 500 k barriel per day
Quote:Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up
made up ? i'm sure you are going to post that crap story that the daughter of the kuwait empasador talked to congress and she lied , she didn't lie , she was a better speaker and you know how hard was it to bring someone who wittness it and talk english ??
Quote:Let's not forget that Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so. Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion. Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up. Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.
No, no, Kuwait and the US were not the innocent sheep attacked by a random wolf. Not at all.
Morrel, At a rape trial, would you be the person saying "Look how she's dressed, she was askin' for it!"?
Quote:Actually, I have yet to see a good argument as to why Kuwait deserved to be bailed out be the Americans
we are a country and we are humans ?
we don't want saddam maybe ?
Quote:They got Iraq to fight a war for them, then bitched when they had to pay for it
is there someone who is making up history ? look , we didn't get iraq to fight iran , he went to fight iran himself , claiming that the algeres treaty is invalid and he want his land back , he attack , got the @#%$ kicked out of him first few rounds , started shouting that the ayatollah are going to get the oil , america got scared , gulf emarate got scared , they all chimed in to help him
8 years later , they reached a cease fire , then at 1990 he returned iran land so he can count on them as allys Vs UN
and whats this @#%$ about pay for it ? we did pay for it , kuwait is the biggest country to loss in all the gulf wars
we lost a lot in iraq / iran war , we had to raise the USA / USSR flags on our oil ship so they can pass , we got hit with rockets , terroiest opration , airplane kidnapping , hell even the amir was attacked with a explosie car
we paid the price , and it was low
our econemy is still trying to recover , pre the war our econemy was better than UAE , now dubai alone have more invesment that kuwait
Quote:Any country that gets another to fight a proxy war for them then bails when it comes time to pay for it deserves to get invaded
what kind of idiotic logic is this ?
pure ignorant
