Fake Soldiers Used In RNC Video

Fake Soldiers Used In RNC Video

www.cbsnews.com

There’s the Continental Congress…A real WWII vet…Photos of workers at Ground Zero. A close-up of a folded flag presented to a grieving widow at a military funeral… profiles of soldiers swelling with pride in slo-motion [sic]. But CBS News found that the footage of the ‘funeral’ and soldiers is what is called ‘stock’ footage. The soldiers were actors and the funeral scene was from a one-day film shoot, produced in June. No real soldiers were used during production.

“What it does reveal is a serious lack of understanding and a lack of personal connection to the military,” said Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

I guess I think this is worthy of discussion because the republicans produced this propaganda video to drum up some serious emotion while using our troops as a baiting tool.

Could you imagine if the democrats had done this?

Support the troops! (just don;t show real troops in your propaganda films).

This is so typical of the right's facade. Big talkers with no action. Wave the flag around shouting USA USA USA enough and you might start to buy the hype too.

I agree. All talk.

It's like all you have to do is raise a flag in front of your house, slap a magnet on your car, and wear a flag pin to prove your a patriot while saying "yes, Mr. President. Whatever you say Mr. president".

It's like that song "More than words" by Extreme. You can say it all you want, but when it comes down to it you have to prove it and all they've done is shown that they would rather throw the money at the war itself and not at the soldiers who are responsible for the progress that has been made and to help them get their lives back together after sacrificing their lives.

Boy, howdy!

CBS has reached a new low.

So, the film makers bought some stock footage of actors portraying a funeral.

What the hell difference does that make?

Would it have been better to make a spectacle of some grieving family's private moments just so a bunch of America haters could feel the realism?

I'd like to know who the supposed veterans' advocate is who's quoted in the article.

Is he afraid to give his name?

What function does he serve that makes him a veterans' advocate or does he just advocate for real soldiers appearing in theatrical film performances?

Are they really "fake soldiers" or are they just actors?

You'd think CBS would be very well acquainted with the Screen Actors' Guild, but I guess not.



[edit on 2008/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by TruthWithin
Wave the flag around shouting USA USA USA enough and you might start to buy the hype too.

actually, if you pause and zoom in, there's a "made in china" sticker on the flag.

(not really)

reply to post by scientist


Actually... I heard China makes the majority of our flags so yes, it prolly would say Made In China.

Anyways, notice how the GOP loves war but very few actually fight them? We have John McCain and.... John McCain? The Dems have several Veterans, some who used to be Republicans. I think it was a veteran from Georgia, who served, lost a leg, but when he went against the Bush Admin the GOP eviscrated him, so he switched parties.

Originally posted by Krieger


Anyways, notice how the GOP loves war....

I never noticed that.

Who among the GOP loves war?

Does supporting a war mean that one loves war?

Is there a historical precedent to support this supposition?

Let's see.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was in office at the outbreak of the War of Northern Aggression, so I guess that lends some credence to your hypothesis.

Then, there's William McKinley, who was a Republican and was the sitting president during the Spanish American War. You're batting 1.000.

Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and happened to be in office at the beginning of WWI, so you're down to .333.

Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was president when Pearl Harbor was bombed. You're in a slump.

Harry Truman presided over the Korean war. It's not looking good.

Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, committed advisers to Vietnam, but it was Lyndon Johnson who committed combat troops. He was a Democrat.

GHW Bush, a Republican, was in office when Iraq invaded Kuwait and organized the operation that would push Saddam back into Iraq. Bush is a Republican.

Bill Clinton committed combat troops to Somalia and Bosnia during his term and carried out more combat missions over Iraq than I care to count and he is a Democrat.

GW Bush is a Republicans and he is prosecuting the war against terrorism a war we are forced to fight, either here or "over there." GW is a Republican.

Is there really just cause to claim that Republicans love war?

You tell me. I lost count.


[edit on 2008/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Lincoln was A LIBERAL AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BACK THEN WAS LIBERAL! Also, the South Attacked the North first, so how was War of Northern Aggression?

Wait, that right there means any talk with you is useless. You want a Confederacy, you want the blacks to be slaves, you want the Jews, Gays, and WOmen to be legally less then men. So... I'll just let you go wishing for two Americas, one of the free and one of Slavery.

Don't let your zeal blind you to humor.

We Southerners suffered for generations at the hand of Washington, DC, politics and yet, we are among the most patriotic in the nation when it comes to serving our nation in times of peace and war, alike.

We are allowed to play with words in that regard and if you don't like it, we'll do it anyway.

Originally posted by nunya13
I guess I think this is worthy of discussion because the republicans produced this propaganda video to drum up some serious emotion while using our troops as a baiting tool.
Could you imagine if the democrats had done this?

Yeah, there is a BIG difference. Both the McCain and Palin families have a strong history as military families. Using stock footage does not diminish their devotion or attachment to the troops, they have "been there and done" that in reality.

Dang whats next, fake documents?

Oh wait.....

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

What the hell difference does that make?

Would it have been better to make a spectacle of some grieving family's private moments just so a bunch of America haters could feel the realism?

I'd like to know who the supposed veterans' advocate is who's quoted in the article.

Is he afraid to give his name?


[edit on 2008/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Actually, it would have been better if they didn't politicize the deaths of soldiers whether fake or not AT ALL.

Also, if you read the article they DO give the name of the verteran's advocate and I think his opinion definitely means something given that he is the Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghnaistan Veterans of America.

A veteran’s advocate said that with soldiers still deployed and in harm’s way, there is an obligation not to sugar coat reality.

“What it does reveal is a serious lack of understanding and a lack of personal connection to the military,” said Paul Rieckhoff, Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Rieckhoff, who is at the convention with a contingent of veterans added that a video tribute to Medal of Honor winner Michael Monsoor, a Navy Seal killed in Iraq, shown on Tuesday night, used combat video that appeared to him and several other veterans of the Iraq war to have been staged.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Yeah, there is a BIG difference. Both the McCain and Palin families have a strong history as military families. Using stock footage does not diminish their devotion or attachment to the troops, they have "been there and done" that in reality.

Obama's grandfather was in the military and Joe Biden's son, Beau Biden is going to Iraq to serve in October.

You don't have to have every single family member in the service in order to claim that you have some sort of "devotion or attachment to the troops".

Are you saying that it's okay to politicize the deaths of soldiers only if you've "been there and done that"?