Matthews: White House Staged Slain Marine Mom's Hug

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It was not staged. The people involved have been making the news circuits denouncing Matthews for these statements.

How do you know this for fact!? It's one person's word against another.

Chris Matthews wasn't there and he's only a third person guessing
and putting his bias into the news. He has no proof. However, the
two women involved were there. They were the ones actually doing
the hugging. They both say it was spontanious. As much as I really
like Hardball and Chris Matthew, he stepped in it this time. He has
no proof, and the two women involved say it was an emotional
moment and it 'just happened'. I'm sure the White House liked
it. I know the dems hated it. They all 'groaned', at least that's
what the TV news is saying.

I'll take the word people who were actually involved, over the
word of a talk show host.

This is what I'm talking about. You didn't have to be there, you only had to watch it on TV or the internet or from some grass hut on an island in the South Pacific to see what was going on. I haven't seen bad acting like that since the last soft core porn movie I watched on Cinemax. And I, for one, didn't "groan", I was trying to keep my chili down. What a joke!! Chris Matthews is an opinionated yet fair guy as far as I'm concerned.

Peace

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Dr Love]

Hmmm, it was staged. Everything is staged, from the lies to get into Iraq to the lies he spews when ever he gives a speech.

Dems to Stage Spontaneous Hug of Their Own
by Scott Ott
scrappleface.com
2.4.05

In an effort to capitalize on the emotional power of the now-famous hug during the president's state of the union address, Congressional Democrats today will stage a warm embrace of their own.

During the president's speech Wednesday night, the mother of a slain U.S. Marine was spontaneously hugged by the daughter of an Iraqi killed by Saddam Hussein. The image captured the hearts of people in both nations as it highlighted what is at stake in Iraq.

In response, Congressional Democrats plan a news media event today which will highlight their party's contribution to global freedom.

According to planners, during a stirring speech by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, he'll introduce the mother of an unnamed U.S. soldier who is currently absent without leave (AWOL). Later, the Senator will recognize the sister of an Iraqi al Qaeda suicide bomber, and the two will impulsively share a hug.

< full story >
********************************
Just so no one gets confused over all the hugging
talk going on - this is SATIRE.

LOL

Scrappleface satire is great at exposing the Dems for what they are!

[edit on 2/4/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Scrappleface satire is great at exposing the Dems for what they are!
[edit on 2/4/2005 by djohnsto77]

You know, I hear this same thing CONSTANTLY. We're exposing Dems for what they really are.

Which is what, exactly?

Do you honestly believe that Democrats are anti-american, traitors to the flags, and all that nonsense? The phrase "Exposing Dems for what they really are", which I hear as a constant mantra from the Reds, really reveals more about the people saying it. It really means...

"I'm looking for evidence that concludes that Dems are...what I most fear"

That's dangerous, but that's on you. Your belief system isn't based on challenging evidence to the contrary, and constantly refining your world view based upon ever presenting situations. Your belief system is regimented, repeated, inundated, over and over again. Pick an ooga booga, someone who wants to ruin your life, and then take the leash off.

Of course it was staged, they don't get in the building, much less sit where they sat, unless the Whitehouse Media relations knew what was going to happen. These two women were vetted for weeks. Everything about them, their families, their friends, and their pasts were known.

Is anyone honestly going to tell me that this some great surprise that caught everyone off guard? If it's spontaneous, it doesn't happen during, at, near, or outside of the State of the Union. Anyone who doesn't believe that is living in fantasy land.

Also, how quickly we forget the past. How quickly we forget the behavior of Newt and the Republicans in 1995, when twenty of them literally walked out on Clinton's State of the Union address.

Originally posted by brimstone735
Do you honestly believe that Democrats are anti-american, traitors to the flags, and all that nonsense?

Yes. All you have to do for proof is to look to Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's latest statements.

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by brimstone735
Do you honestly believe that Democrats are anti-american, traitors to the flags, and all that nonsense?

Yes. All you have to do for proof is to look to Ted Kennedy's and John Kerry's latest statements.

Then you really are one of the mindless sheep and I have nothing but pity for you.

as posted by brimstone735
Also, how quickly we forget the past. How quickly we forget the behavior of Newt and the Republicans in 1995, when twenty of them literally walked out on Clinton's State of the Union address.

Bear this in mind with your mention: 1995 versus 2005.

And your point is what, exactly?
I guess it would depend on who was viewing and interpreting this, correct?

Would you rather have them walk out or sit and booo the President?

IMHO, perhaps those that walked out preferred to walk out rather than sit there and Booo each and everytime a/the president opened his mouth, maybe? Hmm, lets see here: Walking out and not booing versus staying seated and booing, hmmm, which would be more respectful?
I dunno, but again, I guess its a matter of how one perceives and interprets thus, eh?




seekerof

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

1995 versus 2005:
And your point is what, exactly?
I guess it would depend on who was viewing and interpreting this, correct?
Would you rather have them walk out or sit and booo the President?
Whats the difference you say?
IMHO, perhaps those that walked out preferred to walk out rather than sit there and Booo each and everytime a/the president opened his mouth, maybe? Walking out and not booing versus staying seated and booing, hmmm, which would be more respectful?
I dunno, but again, I guess its a matter of how one percieves and interprets thus, eh?
seekerof

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seekerof]

my point is, politics is politics.

I acutally think the Republicans walking out of the State of the Union in 1995 was a valid form of political self expression. I mention, because I've seen people proclaim the evils of the Democrat's sour grapes. They didn't applaud, oh no! They're obviously bitter and angry over losing!

No, it's politics and it's valid.

There wre boos and Catcalls during the 1995 State of the Union. The Republicans were feeling boisterous over taking Congress back. They showed their new found political muscle by embaressing the President during his State of the Union. That's not out of line. Thats perfectly reasonable.

When you're outside, you have to play offense, just the Republicans did, and we're correct to do so. Just as the Democrats are doing now, and are correct in doing so. I just find the Right's ham handed shock and awe over the Dem's actions to be self serving. Republicans

As for these two mothers, we would certainly like to believe that the whole thing to be credible, but let's not forget, we live in big boy world here. This is big boy politics. In big boy politics, mothers of dead soldiers and 9/11 relatives get manipulated to score national politicals points with an ever waivering general public.

To think otherwise is to become tantamount to nieve soccer moms who think Osama Bin laden is going to attack their suburb in Utah.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
They were placed there during the speech as "heroes" a practice that has been done in many State of the Union speeches by many Presidents, including Bill Clinton.

But George was the one who put Chalabi up there. Say, where's Chalabi now, and how's the search for those WMDs he told you about going? George has shot his own credibility (if he ever had any) and destroyed Powell with him.



edit:sp

[edit on 4-2-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by brimstone735
Also, how quickly we forget the past. How quickly we forget the behavior of Newt and the Republicans in 1995, when twenty of them literally walked out on Clinton's State of the Union address.

Bear this in mind with your mention: 1995 versus 2005.

And your point is what, exactly?
I guess it would depend on who was viewing and interpreting this, correct?

Would you rather have them walk out or sit and booo the President?

IMHO, perhaps those that walked out preferred to walk out rather than sit there and Booo each and everytime a/the president opened his mouth, maybe? Hmm, lets see here: Walking out and not booing versus staying seated and booing, hmmm, which would be more respectful?
I dunno, but again, I guess its a matter of how one perceives and interprets thus, eh?




seekerof

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Hmmm, how about acting like adults?

What has the year got to do with it? Politicians failing to show respect for their own office, let alone that of the head of state is immature no matter who it is. Being the representatives of the people they had a duty to sit through the Address, after all they're the ones who demanded that the Pres inform them from time to time as to the state of the Union.

I'm virulently anti-Bush but I lost large amounts of respect for Senator Bob Brown when he interjected during George's address to Parliament. There's a time and place for these things and that wasn't it. That's what throwing eggs on the street is for!

Naturally. Of course the most powerful moment of the address, the one that moved conservative and liberal alike had to be staged. To say otherwise would be to admit that Iraqis don't hate the fact that we're there.


It's really remarkable that the White House found such great actors, though. I expect to see all three of them showing up in Hollywood by the end of the year booting out most other actors and actresses whom you can tell are acting in a movie, like Mel Gibson (terrible actor compared to all three of those people), George Cloony (has nothin' on them), Matt Damen (people will, after seeing a movie with one of these White House actors, say "Matt who?"), and any others. These three are going to take Hollywood by storm because those other bad actors you can tell are acting by looking in their eyes. These three were so incredible at the art of pretend, as was Bush's reaction, which others were kind enough to explain to me was faked, that their entire being, from how they stood to their expressions to their eyes didn't show the lie that we all know had to be there. After all, we all know that the democrats are right, all Iraqis hate us, and the world would be better off if America were no longer around but just another principality or colony of France, who has so many others they take good care of.

Sorry, I did give myself a week, and I couldn't let this lunacy stand.

Originally posted by junglejake
Sorry, I did give myself a week, and I couldn't let this lunacy stand.

Well, since you put it that way, YES, yes it was staged.

If they weren't there to hug, why were they there?

It's because the entire thing was vetted and test marketed for a very specific audience. And, I want you to think about this, who is the single demographic that decided the last election.

If you said Evangelicals, you're wrong.

It's the soccer moms. And who is the single group most dwindling in their support of the war? Soccer moms. And, just like selling a new brand of coffee or a new station wagon, this White House found their target audience. They need to stop the hemorrhaging of soccer moms turning against the war. So, what do they do? They found a cast most appealing to their target audience.

Grieving parents always look on televison, make'em from the Heartland, even better. Make them look plain, and not polished, even better than that. If these greiving parents look like your next door neighbor or the mailman or lucy at the hair salon, then you begin to relate to and empathize with them.

But, what's that?

Sit her down next to an Iraqi National. Not a scary looking Iraqi, but a soft around the edges, pleasent looking homely looking Iraqi. Gosh, the kind of Iraqi that any soccer mom can relate to. BUt, this isn't just any plain looking Iraqi, this is Safia Taleb Al Souhail, one of the heads of the "International Alliance for Justice", who previously published policy papers for the "Foundation for the defence of Democracies" group.

(And who is on the Board of Directors for the "Foundation For the Defense of Democracies"? Newt Gingrich. Jack kemp. Gary Bauer. Bill Kristol. Charles Krauthammer. Richard Perle. And, drum roll please, Zell Miller.)

Suddenly, they hug, and soccer moms everywhere are swooning with pride over the great thing we're doing. "I'm not scared anymore", they say, "the price we're paying is obviously well worth it. Why, just look at this friendly looking Iraqi who appreciates the the sacrifice of this strangely familiar American woman. I must now return my support to the war effort".

Who would have thunk it?

IMHO, perhaps those that walked out preferred to walk out rather than sit there and Booo each and everytime a/the president opened his mouth, maybe?

Now theres an intresting point, I lost count of howmany times everyone stood and clapped "every time bush opened his mouth". Not intentional? pffft!

I have to say, this is the first address I've actually watched and payed attention. As a result, I was shocked when the dems started booing. What incredible disrespect for the office of the president. The fact that this wasn't a big deal afterwards told me it happened with Clinton, too. Shame on you, represenitives. That position, no matter who holds it, is one that represents our country. Your silence speaks loud enough. Booing is just rude and childish.

As to the soccer moms thing, I'm glad you said that. I was about to pull my Christian demographics graphs and point out that we voted as polarly as the rest of ya. However, I don't think it was staged. It was too genuine. If someone can link us to a high quality video, I'll point out some of the things that people in Hollywood can't fake.

I've studied psychology for 12 years because I was in a horrible relationship that I never really recovered from; as a result, I've studied extensivly on how to detect a lie. I am actually disconcerting for some people to talk to because I look you in the eye and don't stop until the conversation is over. There is too much you can give away at any time for you to pull one over on someone. Find me a clip where you can see freckles and blackheads, and I'll point out the details. At this point, I make the assessment automatically, so I can't recall the tells, but if I were to see it, I could. After that, you can callk them liars all you like because I'll have nothing more to say about it.


...


That I know of.

Originally posted by junglejake
I've studied psychology for 12 years because I was in a horrible relationship that I never really recovered from; as a result, I've studied extensivly on how to detect a lie. I am actually disconcerting for some people to talk to because I look you in the eye and don't stop until the conversation is over.

Ibelieve that you have some finely honed lie detecting skills, a regular crime fighting machine, but the easiest thing in the world is to manipulate those who LOOK for manipulation. Don't look at the net outcome, look at the proceeding factors that enabled it.

I think Bush honestly felt something, but that's because I think he suffers from the Dry Drunk Syndrome, but that's another time and another post.

I have no doubt that this mother's feelings were indeed legitimate.But, how that mother got to the point where she cried and hugged the other woman, that's another thing entirely.

For some people, power is mundane. Eh, I had, lunch with the king of Belgium, oh well. They're unimpressed with the trappings that come with power. The position. But, if you take a person, obviously still grieving over the death of her son, obviously someone who supports the president, obviously someone who is indeed a Republican, and you fly them to Washington, and you put introduce them them to corridors of power and the halls of influence all at once, and you put her in a room with the most powerful men in the world, and you put her by the First Lady, and the President makes a special point to mention her, and her son's sacrifice, and all these powerful people are now standing and clapping in honor of her, who wouldn't cry? Who wouldn't react the way she reacted?

Anybody who hasn't lived in Washington D.C. is nieve to Washington D.C.
I can't believe Karl Rove, who sabotaged McCain's presidential Bid in South Carolina by spreading rumors about a black baby, wouldn't think of this.

I can't believe Karl Rove, who once planted bugs in his own office to impune the democrat running against his candidate, wouldn't think of this.

I can't believe Karl Rove, who had Zell Miller attack his own party at the republican National convention, for good PR, wouldn't think of this.

I can't believe Karl Rove, who in my mind, orchestrated the swift Boat vets against Kerry, and so utterly and completely irradiated Kerry for the next several hundred years, wouldn't think of this. (This actually isn't a slam, I kinda admire the evil in it. There's a certain ruthless quality about it that I can really appreciate)

I can't believe that this administration, who manipulated the tearing down of the Statue of Saddam for a PR stunt, wouldn't think of this.

And, I simply can't believe that an administration so desperate for good PR, that they pay conservative columnists to galvanize THEIR OWN SIDE, wouldn't put A and B and C together to form D. D that would save their collective backsides for another month.

I just don't. I actually have too much respect for the genius of Karl Rove for this not to be work.

Originally posted by junglejake
I have to say, this is the first address I've actually watched and payed attention. As a result, I was shocked when the dems started booing. What incredible disrespect for the office of the president. The fact that this wasn't a big deal afterwards told me it happened with Clinton, too. Shame on you, represenitives. That position, no matter who holds it, is one that represents our country. Your silence speaks loud enough. Booing is just rude and childish.

Might want to look at the state of the union addresses Clinton gave after 94 and how the republicans booed there to. The differance is the Democrats often were able to clap louder then the booing. Which even got a chuckle from Clinton

Now the tables are turned and republicans are back to attackign and undermining any attempts are bi-partisenship, while with the other side of thier mouth they point out that democracts are delaying such things as social security and cabinet nominations.

I want to know who paid for the flight, room, and board for Safia Taleb al-Suhail to be there, and how often she cleans that right hand of hers (or does she keep it as clean as her left one? ) and it almsot bad taste but you can see the dog tags in Janet Norwood's left hand and she hugs Safia Teleb.

The really sad part is Janet Norwood, like many other Moms firmly belive that all the US soldiers dying and getting dismembered are keeping them safer, when it has been proven by the Dulfer report that we probly safer by never going into Iraq, nor had any reason to.

The Iraqis might have been able to vote, but democracy has a bitter taste when you dont have any electriciy, or clean water

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Might want to look at the state of the union addresses Clinton gave after 94 and how the republicans booed there to. The differance is the Democrats often were able to clap louder then the booing. Which even got a chuckle from Clinton

That was my point. I think it is normal, and a big "boo" from JJ to both sides for doing that. Don't try to turn my post against the house into a partisan thing, it wasn't. I think booing during that is dead wrong in all respects, agree or disagree with who's in office.

Originally posted by brimstone735
If they weren't there to hug, why were they there?

EVERY president, Republican and Democrat, invite a special
guest or two to the State of the Union Address. It was done
for many years before 'W' got there, it will be done for many
years after he's gone. The special guest(s) is(are) introduced
to the country and usually it's to honor them, or to bring
attention to a special situation. The pregnant widow of Todd
Beamer (I think that's his name) was the guest at the first
State of the Union after 9/11. The president of Afghanistan
- Karzi?? - was the special guest the next year. Special guests
have been happening for a long long time, and BOTH political
parties have been inviting them and introducing them to the
country. BOTH. It's a great honor for those invited and it's
just fine by me.

Looks like this woman's father's assassin was paid by Saddam in UN Oil-for-Food vouchers. That's really nice...another stunning achievement for Kofi Annan.

Here's more on this from Gateway Pundit:

To top it off this week as George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address this week and in a brilliant move invited a young Iraqi woman who just came from the first free democratic elections in Iraq since the country stopped producing mass graves. A hat tip to the official who decided to invite this young woman. You see, the young woman, Safia al-Souhail is a leading political figure in post-Saddam Iraq. And, Safia’s own father was assassinated by thugs during Saddam’s tyrannical rule. And the man who did it she proclaims was given an “Oil for Food” voucher as a present for this murder. She had just voted in a free Iraqi election and was waving her blue finger of thanks to the American public for their heroic efforts. A very good week for this young Iraqi hero.