King of photo op

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
Oops forgot the link but someone else has posted one.

moral boosting? For a select few who were allowed see Bush, what about the ones who were kept outside the airport not allowed to eat until he left? o_O

It is like he does photo ops with absolute no thought behind what he is doing. Just creating his little photo album for the history books.

The answer to your first question is a military operations one. Now, you would not want to have all US personell, several thousand in an area which you could only seat 600. Quarters would have been very cramped. However, not even Bob Hope and the USO tours could see all US personell, whether in a war zone or not.

On the second question, the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots. The picture, as Bonkey stated, was taken at a particular time. It was, no doubt, purchased by various newspapers for their various bylines and hence, the story came into being. Their were only a select few journalists who accompanied the President on the trip and hence where the pictures were taken, but this is another shining example of media hystieria on a non-news story.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
On the second question, the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots.

Actually the president has a permanent official photographer plus whatever screened journos / photographers were allowed along.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
The answer to your first question is a military operations one. Now, you would not want to have all US personell, several thousand in an area which you could only seat 600.

True, or you could actually allow the people who were supposed to be there at that time, rather then a select hand picked few who agree with Bush.

the President does not exactly have a professional photographer asking all parties involved to pose like idiots.

Actually he does. As Victor has already pointed out, and those reporters who ask the questions that people should really be asking don't get invited back to press conferences again (or pushed right to the back where they can't ask the president something).

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
When you have to have something so secret in which the "cargo" is figuratively, like the largest gold shipment to be made, a single leak could pose that shipment in danger.

Geromino...I've got all that. The gold is in the bank, secure, and nothing happened. OK....we're both agreed....we're talking about after the fact.

I'm asking what gain it is to anyone to issue verifiably false statements about what happened.

I'll clarify again.....I am not asking why they kept it secret in the first place, but why they lied about how risky it was after the fact. It was risky enough...but obviously lacking in glamour, so they "sexed it up" the story a bit in order to make it more newsworthy.

The real story here is not about the President's trip, but how well, for once, the security agencies worked together with no one having a personal agenda to gain. It was not the picture of the faked turkey

Actually - not so. Thats what the real story should have been, but the White House were too quick to try and capitalise on it with yet more lies which has overshadowed all of it.

Bonkey, the whole trip was for morale boost of the troops.

It should have been, yes. It may have been intended to be. But it no longer is. Just as the welcoming back home of a warship from active duty is supposed to be about welcoming the troops back home, but that led to the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco - yet more falsification by the White House which overshadowed the entire event.

The thing is that I could accept government "white lies" which were taken for reasons of national security. Thus, I would be in no way critical of the White House having said "he's at home at his ranch, calling the troops in Iraq and spending Thanksgiving with his family" (which apparently they did say) while Bush was on his way to/from Iraq. Thats fair enough.

What I cannot accept is the validity of these all-too-frequent PR-based lies which the White House keeps getting caught for. And thats what they are - PR-based lies. Almost evrey single one of them which was a photo-op has firstly been hailed as a "defining image of the presidency", and then shown to be fake.

That is nothing more than an attempt to boost the President's popularity coming up to an election through the use of lies and media manipulation.

However, I wonder if the media is hyping this story up since they were snubbed.

They weren't snubbed. Bush travelled with his usual contingent from the press-pool, who have a "round-robin" sharing agreement amongst themselves so that they all get the pictures from every event without the need to have a camerman etc. from every major station with the Pres at all times. The pictures from Iraq, for example, came from Fox. I saw them on CNN who had to wait the usual handful of minutes because thats the "lead time" that whoever owns the camera on any given day typically gets.

I have made known my disdain for newspapers, of any nation, and their lack of investigative reporting. In my view, any newspaper reporter is deemed a "useful idiot."

I find it so funny that you are so dismissive of the newsies, and yet see nothing at all noteworthy in the fact that your government lies to you on a regular basis - particularly, it would seem, when it comes to a matter of swaying public opinion towards re-electing them or just plain making the President a bit more popular.

As a comparison : the Russian elections just held were slated - not for being improperly held, but because the ruling powers gave themselves unfair access to the state-run media, whilst limiting the access of the opposition parties. Manipulation of the media is enough to have the electoral watchdogs out decrying the elections already as improper and a step backwards.

You, on the other hand, are saying that its perfectly acceptable - and non-newsworthy - for the President, in an election year to stage these type of popularity-grabbing camera-moments through the use of lies....and that in fact its the media's fault for actually making a story out of it when they say "we were lied to by our President and his staff....again".

I find that comparison interesting....you see it as percectly acceptable for Bush and his PR-bods to manipulate the media through lies approaching an election, but not for the media to highlight those lies as something noteworthy. Electoral watchdogs, on the other hand, see any gross media manipulation as sufficient grounds to effectively condemn electoral results as being improper.

I know who I side with.....

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by Victor
Actually the president has a permanent official photographer plus whatever screened journos / photographers were allowed along.

The photographer works for the white house, not the President. However, the presidend does select an individual who in turn is under the auspices of the press secretary. Furthermore, when the pictures are taken, it is not exactly on the scale of GQ magazine. The photographer is free to take the pictures of the president, normaly two or three rolls at a time per engagement.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
True, or you could actually allow the people who were supposed to be there at that time, rather then a select hand picked few who agree with Bush.

Military personell cannot openly support, campaign, or advertise overtly any presidential candidate or current president. Military personell cannot openly criticize the president either. This has to do with the chain of command doctrine. The President, under the Articles of the Constitution, is the commander-in-chief. Hence, the 600 were there by mere coincidence. To make you feel better, two privates (I belieive) who were there expressed their concern about security issues to a couple of journalists.

Actually he does. As Victor has already pointed out, and those reporters who ask the questions that people should really be asking don't get invited back to press conferences again (or pushed right to the back where they can't ask the president something).

They are called the White House Press Corp. There is a process in which one gets their creditials and accompany the President on all overseas (unless security becomes a concern) trips. Second, the White House Correspondents Association generally polices its own members. Those who do not adhere to the rules generally are left out of the loop by the association, not the White House.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
Military personell cannot openly support, campaign, or advertise overtly any presidential candidate or current president.

I am not talking about letting people go see the president (although I am sure there were some pissed off over it). He held up operations while his visit went on and also had people waiting for thier food which is a bit ironic when he is supposed to bringing food to the troops (which he didn't do either).

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Geromino...I've got all that. The gold is in the bank, secure, and nothing happened. OK....we're both agreed....we're talking about after the fact.

I'm asking what gain it is to anyone to issue verifiably false statements about what happened.

I'll clarify again.....I am not asking why they kept it secret in the first place, but why they lied about how risky it was after the fact. It was risky enough...but obviously lacking in glamour, so they "sexed it up" the story a bit in order to make it more newsworthy.

But what did they lie about Bonkey, specifically? Everybody keeps saying that President Bush lied (on this specific issue is what I am only addressing at the time being), but no one has really put a fingure on it. If it is the three "news stories" about the BA flight encounter, one will notice several things. First, the newspaper reporter names "Bush officials" as saying this or that. If one has spoken to a Bush official, then a name should appear. More likely, it was probably a low level employee who spoke on something in which he/she knew nothing about. Another indication is the "White House said" this or that. Again, the same principle applies. If the white house said something officially, it would have come from a high level Bush official, or more precisely, the White House Press Secretary or its immideate staff. But again, no names. If it was unofficial, it then should have been designated so. However, none of the journalists asked BA for a comment, at least what I saw from the links. And the other notification is the followup stories on the BA flight. Once a newspaper releases a story that alleges the White House said something and it is not true, then the White House must respond to those reports. But again, officials are never recognized officially or unofficially nearly all the time. It is those sublte details that can distinquish between what is bull and what is not. The perception of the truth seems to be the Admin lied; however, the reality of the story is that no one really knows because the flight data recorder will not be taken off the plane and analyzed.

Actually - not so. Thats what the real story should have been, but the White House were too quick to try and capitalise on it with yet more lies which has overshadowed all of it.

It has been the story for about three days in the media outlests here as well as several security think tanks as well.

QUOTE]It should have been, yes. It may have been intended to be. But it no longer is. Just as the welcoming back home of a warship from active duty is supposed to be about welcoming the troops back home, but that led to the "Mission Accomplished" fiasco - yet more falsification by the White House which overshadowed the entire event.

The thing is that I could accept government "white lies" which were taken for reasons of national security. Thus, I would be in no way critical of the White House having said "he's at home at his ranch, calling the troops in Iraq and spending Thanksgiving with his family" (which apparently they did say) while Bush was on his way to/from Iraq. Thats fair enough.

What I cannot accept is the validity of these all-too-frequent PR-based lies which the White House keeps getting caught for. And thats what they are - PR-based lies. Almost evrey single one of them which was a photo-op has firstly been hailed as a "defining image of the presidency", and then shown to be fake.

That is nothing more than an attempt to boost the President's popularity coming up to an election through the use of lies and media manipulation.

They weren't snubbed. Bush travelled with his usual contingent from the press-pool, who have a "round-robin" sharing agreement amongst themselves so that they all get the pictures from every event without the need to have a camerman etc. from every major station with the Pres at all times. The pictures from Iraq, for example, came from Fox. I saw them on CNN who had to wait the usual handful of minutes because thats the "lead time" that whoever owns the camera on any given day typically gets.[/QUOTE]

Bonkey, the reality of the trip was to boost morale. The fake turkey picture is a non-story. It was a symbol of home and nothing more. The hoopla about the fake turkey shows the lack integrity by the news media (this includes Fox by the way). The distraction from the news media has been the fake turkey and the so called BA flight encounter which some groups now perceive as "lying." Again, look at the beginning of my reply and you will see how the media creates the story. Once a story is released, whatever the intended purpose of the journalist, it gets bought and used through the by-line. This is how newspapers work. The investigative reporters at the "local" newspaper then take the general by-line, make a few calls, take some notes, sometimes make some things up, and then you have a similar story.

I find it so funny that you are so dismissive of the newsies, and yet see nothing at all noteworthy in the fact that your government lies to you on a regular basis - particularly, it would seem, when it comes to a matter of swaying public opinion towards re-electing them or just plain making the President a bit more popular.

As a comparison : the Russian elections just held were slated - not for being improperly held, but because the ruling powers gave themselves unfair access to the state-run media, whilst limiting the access of the opposition parties. Manipulation of the media is enough to have the electoral watchdogs out decrying the elections already as improper and a step backwards.

You, on the other hand, are saying that its perfectly acceptable - and non-newsworthy - for the President, in an election year to stage these type of popularity-grabbing camera-moments through the use of lies....and that in fact its the media's fault for actually making a story out of it when they say "we were lied to by our President and his staff....again".

I find that comparison interesting....you see it as percectly acceptable for Bush and his PR-bods to manipulate the media through lies approaching an election, but not for the media to highlight those lies as something noteworthy. Electoral watchdogs, on the other hand, see any gross media manipulation as sufficient grounds to effectively condemn electoral results as being improper.

I know who I side with.....

jc

Bonkey, I have never stated, nor have I suggested, nor have I acknowledged that this is a publicity stunt. The publicity stunt is coming from the news media, not the admin, in this particular case. The reality is Bonkey is that you have a perception of what happened and I have a different perception of what happened. The question becomes who is right? The answer might shock you Bonkey: we are both right because of our perceptions.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
I am not talking about letting people go see the president (although I am sure there were some pissed off over it). He held up operations while his visit went on and also had people waiting for thier food which is a bit ironic when he is supposed to bringing food to the troops (which he didn't do either).

No Hobbes. Having several hundred troops in a dining hall and waiting for the President for about an Hour does not hold up essential military operations. Military experts will agree, unanimously, on this. Furthermore, the President was not bringing food to the troops. That is what the chow line was for, Hobbes. And as one other poster pointed out, there were pictures of President Bush serving the troops on the chow line. You are reaching for the stars on this one Hobbes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
No Hobbes. Having several hundred troops in a dining hall and waiting for the President for about an Hour does not hold up essential military operations.

He was holding up people from eating at thier set time (hence the irony of 'bringing food to the troops'). He also held up airport operations and at least one commander of a unit lodged a complaint of it putting his men in danger.

And as one other poster pointed out, there were pictures of President Bush serving the troops on the chow line. [/B]

Yes Man mentions he did that as well but to point out what Bonkey already said...

If he served people going through the usual chow-line, then why not show it? Why show something that is - again - verifiably false, instead of what Bush allegedly went there for???

bonkey

I think Geromino's line, Hobbes, seems to be that this was - in fact - not something at all engineered by the White House, but rather a non-story blown out of all proportion....typically by White House-hating* media who will print anything to embarrass the President.

jc

* this would apparently include that well-known establishment-hating Fox, who's team it was who accompanied the Pres on this particular trip.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I think Geromino's line, Hobbes, seems to be that this was - in fact - not something at all engineered by the White House, but rather a non-story blown out of all proportion....typically by White House-hating* media who will print anything to embarrass the President.

jc

* this would apparently include that well-known establishment-hating Fox, who's team it was who accompanied the Pres on this particular trip.

Bonkey,
The first part of your post was correct but the second part (generalization of "White House hating) was off the mark. Although there are some news organizations, because of their political philosophy, would print anything to embarrass the current, or any, president, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that newsmedia are "usefull idiots." They will only print what will sell newspapers or get viewers tuned in (video media). This answers your question why newspapers did not print a picture of President Bush serving the troops. Quite frankly, it will not sell newspapers unless there was a unique angle to tell the story.

To Hobbes,
It was not holding up essential operations. Unless you have the entire information at hand (situational reports from the various units), then all you are doing is blowing smoke.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Although there are some news organizations, because of their political philosophy, would print anything to embarrass the current, or any, president, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that newsmedia are "usefull idiots."

I guess I misinterpreted your previous statement :

However, depending on whether you hate (figuratively of course) the President or not , then it all depends on the story line, now doesn't it

I read that to mean that anyone who used this story to level criticism at the President and his office in general was doing so because of hate (figuratively speaking)....

Put another way, the statement implies that critical story-lines would be levelled out of hate, while less critical (but equally sensationalist) ones would be a sign of "lack of hate", and would just be general media overhype....and that the line taken would be dependant on the existence (and presumably magnitude) of this figurative hatred.

Given that this is not what you meant, maybe you could explain what you did mean?

jc

bonkey

To Hobbes,
It was not holding up essential operations. Unless you have the entire information at hand (situational reports from the various units), then all you are doing is blowing smoke.

I guess one could equally say that unless you have the entire information at hand, your first sentence is equally as unfounded as Hobbes' claim is. Each of you is simply choosing which media to believe.

The Whitehouse no doubt say "no, it didn't cause any upset", and (although linkless) Hobbes points out that at least one complaint about ensuing endangerment was lodged....

So who do we trust? Was the captain lodging his report that he was endangered simply acting out of some personal motivation? Was it just more President-critical media hype - overblowing an event out of proportion? Or perhaps the Whitehouse line (or wherever it came from) that nothing was delayed, endangered, etc. etc. etc. is a revision of the truth (once more), and that "none" really means "very little".

I'd be inclined to say that the complaint was lodged, and that delays/endangerment did occur to at least some small degree.

However, I would not be too concerned or critical about it either - the last thing any US President is going to knowingly do is risk getting his name in the headlines as being responsible for a FUBARed op (with casualties or even fatalaties ensuing) as a result of a morale-boosting attempt.

jc

Victor

[more bush bashing*]Apparently he actually served potatoes, not turkey, it wouldn't go down well that most of hte turkey served was turkey pieces, not real turkey[/more bush bashing]

* bush bashing has no sexual connotations

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
I guess I misinterpreted your previous statement :

I read that to mean that anyone who used this story to level criticism at the President and his office in general was doing so because of hate (figuratively speaking)....

Put another way, the statement implies that critical story-lines would be levelled out of hate, while less critical (but equally sensationalist) ones would be a sign of "lack of hate", and would just be general media overhype....and that the line taken would be dependant on the existence (and presumably magnitude) of this figurative hatred.

Given that this is not what you meant, maybe you could explain what you did mean?

jc

Bonkey, you are making an assumption that it was a critique of the Bush Admin. I am simply stating it was not a critique but sensational journalism. If you read the story, you will see the journalist's references as "White House officials sad this;" "White House officials said that;" "Bush officials said this;" and "Bush officials said that." Would you like to know who precisely make those comments? Was it the janitor, an intern, or someone who actually makes some decisions or had access to the knowledge. Or was it done anonymously? If anonymously, then it should have been stated? These question are essential when reading any newstory from any source. This is how I read newstories and have drawn the conclusion of "useful idiots." This is my point on the news articles.

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Bonkey, you are making an assumption that it was a critique of the Bush Admin.

No, I'm not.

I'm asking what you meant when you said that those who hated the President would be pitch the story in a certain way - being critical of him.

I'm not making any assumption...nor referring to any single, specific report or article.

I'm asking what you meant if not that those who print critical articles based on this event do so because they hate the President, and (presumably) would have printed a less critical (although equally sensational) article if they didn't hate him.

If thats what you meant, and I can produce any Fox article which is critical of Bush over this event, then surely it is because Fox hate the President.

If thats not what you meant - which now seems to be the case - then perhaps you could explain what you meant by the comment.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
No, I'm not.

I'm asking what you meant when you said that those who hated the President would be pitch the story in a certain way - being critical of him.

I'm not making any assumption...nor referring to any single, specific report or article.

I'm asking what you meant if not that those who print critical articles based on this event do so because they hate the President, and (presumably) would have printed a less critical (although equally sensational) article if they didn't hate him.

If thats what you meant, and I can produce any Fox article which is critical of Bush over this event, then surely it is because Fox hate the President.

If thats not what you meant - which now seems to be the case - then perhaps you could explain what you meant by the comment.

jc

Bonkey,
There is an adage that states believe in nothing what you hear and only half what you read, or is it the other way around. Look at the article and tell me which (and I mean specifically) "Bush official" acknowledged what the journalist was stating/witing/thinking. The fact is, you nor I nor anyone else, except for the aurthor, can, that is if he ever talked to one in the first place. Now, let us take a look at newspapers. As I have stated, newspapers will buy the copyright stories from the authors and print them, and in most cases without checking the facts. And when you cannot determine who specifically said what or why, then the article is not deemed no more valuable than fly spit.

TomF

This appeared in the news today. It's too bad it had to be printed in small type, probably at the bottom of an inside page:

"Corrections

"Published: July 11, 2004
...
"Week in Review,

"An article last Sunday about surprises in politics referred incorrectly to the turkey carried by President Bush during his unannounced visit to American troops in Baghdad over Thanksgiving. It was real, not fake."

http://www.nytimes.com/corrections.html

Maybe I haven't been paying close attention, but this is the first I have heard that the "fake" turkey was real. If you read through this thread from the beginning, you will see several frequent posters who took the bait of "the fake turkey story" -- hook, line and sinker.

Isn't the Internet wonderful? It lets us remember what people said and months later when we learn that what they said was incorrect we can call up those memories and examine them in light of the facts.

Hobbes

Originally posted by TomF

Isn't the Internet wonderful? It lets us remember what people said and months later when we learn that what they said was incorrect we can call up those memories and examine them in light of the facts.

Yea, just like those weapons of mass destruction. Which would you rather be wrong about? A real turkey or a lie to invade another country?

Also can you quote more sources, or where they got the details from. The reason I ask is a number of newspapers reported the story, yet only one is saying it is incorrect?

Also it wasn't nytimes that broke the story. It was the Washinton post.

The newspaper reported that in response to questions about the bird, the White House said the turkey was a decoration adorning the steam table where GIs picked up their food on cafeteria-style trays.

Shown here. Picture from Whitehouse (but where is the turkey!)


The White House said the bird had been furnished by a contractor, and that officials had no idea that the turkey would be in the mess hall, or that the president would pick up the trophy turkey.

The Post quoted military sources as saying that a decorative turkey was a standard feature of holiday chow lines.

Lastly they can't post a correction for what was fact..

From the story.

. (The public relations bonanza fizzled after the press reported that Mr. Bush had posed with a mouth-watering - but fake - turkey.)

It may of been real, but the reporter is stating that others had reported it false which had caused it to backfire. It might well of been real but the story they are claiming a correction on is actually correct to begin with.

.. But if you can find the actuall story where it was mentioned the Turkey was real, feel free to post it.

Victor

I'm not re-reading everything, but wasn't the real issue that pretty much everyone was few "reconstituted" *not* fresh turkey and that Bush actually served the potatoes, not turkey.

And the fact that Bush's security teams endangered soldiers by not letting them leave before dark.

TomF

I hope this is good-enough for everyone. I think the point is that Bush actually flew into a war zone, a fairly rare event, and had Thanksgiving dinner with a bunch of soldiers. Yes, there was a wait, both before and after, because security precautions had to be extraordinary, but the dinner was real, and I think Bush reacted emotionally to being in the presence of those troops and he delighted himself and the soldiers when he grabbed the tray with the real roasted turkey and displayed it. He seems to me to be a genuine human being and I think all the sniping about "fake turkey" has just backfired in a very telling way on those who wanted so desperately to make him seem like a publicity-seeking goon.

"Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines."

The Bird Was Perfect But Not For Dinner
In Iraq Picture, Bush Is Holding the Centerpiece

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A33
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33090-2003Dec3

Sparks

Originally posted by TomF
He seems to me to be a genuine human being

As opposed to a green lizard?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Victor
I'm not re-reading everything, but wasn't the real issue that pretty much everyone was few "reconstituted" *not* fresh turkey and that Bush actually served the potatoes, not turkey.

And the fact that Bush's security teams endangered soldiers by not letting them leave before dark.

Indeed, and the best they can come up with the bird wasn't fake.. but then it wasn't edible either, it was only for show so is that not the same thing?

desperately to make him seem like a publicity-seeking goon.

Make him? "Mission Accomplished" ???

Btw, you just quoted what I had said to begin with. The Turkey was a decoration.

TomF

Well, lads, as Will Rogers is said to have said, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." (That one was quoted with good effect against me!) He also is said to have said "Always drink upstream from the herd." Herd-think got you into this hole and you will have to stop back-pedalling or trying to change the subject sooner or later and just fall silent and accept that the turkey wasn't fake.

The turkey was real, and it was edible although meant as a feast for the eyes. Can you imagine the hysteria among the Bush-haters if that turkey had been roasted especially for the surprise guest-of-honour, and if the soldiers in attendance had only been served the sliced stuff from the chow line? As it was, their commander-in-chief went through the line and even helped serve.

Sparks

Tell you what TomF. I'll step up to the plate, and eat all the crow you want regarding the status of the turkey.

All you need do in return is bring the 10,000 dead innocent Iraqi civilians back to life and say "whoops, sorry 'bout that, turns out you really didn't have weapons of mass destruction and weren't really helping Al Quaeda and weren't really a threat to the western states....

Hobbes

The Turkey was not edible. from the same story you posted.

administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate.

The soliders in attendance had only been served sliced stuff from the steam trays.

Is this going to be Bushes new rallying cry "OMG After everything that has happened, at least the fuking turkey was real you bitches". :rolleyes:

TomF

There you go again. Sigh.

bonkey

Originally posted by TomF
I think the point is that Bush actually flew into a war zone,

And if he hadn't been telling the world and its auntie prior to that visit about how the major hostilities were over, and how the reports of the violence were greatly exaggerated etc. etc. etc. this would be worth something.

Sure, in hindsight we know that they were either lying or just plain wrong about how bad things weren't, but at the time, we were led to believe that :

a) Iraq, especially around where US army was in strength, was nowhere near as wild as teh media would lead us to believe
and
b) How brave Bush was going into this not-very-wild-at-all-really place because, hey, it was wild and dangerous.

He seems to me to be a genuine human being and I think all the sniping about "fake turkey" has just backfired in a very telling way on those who wanted so desperately to make him seem like a publicity-seeking goon.

Yes, it backfired so much that 7 moths after the critics of the event completly dropping it as just another embarrassment during the Madness of King George, his supporters need to drag it back up and discuss it all over again because its so important.

Clearly the incident was insignificant. It should be relegated to the list of all those other insignificant things that are so forgettable that they too are worth comment after 7 months of silence.

jc