Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "His heart just isn't in it...."] [Archive Index] [>>"It depends on what the definition of 'better' is...."]
10/28/2003 Archived Entry: "Hmm. Seems to be a discrepancy here...."
Hmm. Seems to be a discrepancy here....
From today's press conference:
The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way.
But wait, hold up.... back in May, the NYTimes reported this:
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in
coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot.
Replies: 3 people speak up
Stranger-
I'm just OUTRAGED at the stupid denial of this simple thing. I wrote this some time ago back when Bartcop.com ran a piece about it. As a former sailor, and a current GS working for one of the Navy's highest Commands, I can say that that banner was NOT made by the USS Lincoln...
About that “Mission Accomplished” sign…
OK—MAYBE the sailors (riggers) were tasked to put up that stinking banner… But I’m here to tell you that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY IN HELL that the print shop of the USS Abraham Lincoln could have made that banner. I was a Lithographer in the Navy. I KNOW what the shipboard printing capabilities are on a ship, and I can, without a doubt, and without a single one of my Lithographic peers being able to deny it, tell you that that banner could not POSSIBLY have been made on board the USS Abraham Lincoln—or ANY Ship in the Fleet for that matter. The printing equipment does NOT exist on a ship to do it. For that matter, I worked at one of the biggest Military print shops shore-side, and can tell you that it couldn’t have been done by the Navy— or the Military.
A banner that big would have to not only go through the Government Printing Office, it would have to go out to bid—a process of no less than three weeks, plus no less than 4 days for the IRD (spending request) to clear the command BEFORE the bid process could even begin. Longer when you’re aboard a ship engaged in a war, and it would take the company about 10 days (at the best) to turn around a finished product (including a scaled proof, approval, and the actual printing—not including the lag-time due to Hyped-up Base Security which amounts to three days in/three days out—add it up), and THEN they have to get it to the ship.
Right now, I’m working for the Navy as a GS, and my collateral duty is to serve as printing officer when the REAL printing officer is away. I KNOW the process, and KNOW what is involved in getting something like this done. As we speak, I am in the process of getting vinyl banners printed for my Command—nothing to do with “Mission Accomplished”, but on the same scale.
Could this be an old banner that they dug up from Gulf War Pappy? NO. Those graphics are way too new and “now” to have been laying around the ship since 1991. Further, I doubt it was purchased for the Somalia Affair either, as Carriers were not a major part of the mission there. In my time with the Navy, I have NEVER seen a banner like this displayed on ANY Ship— I served on a Flagship for the 2nd Fleet—if ANY ship would have had one—it would have been THAT Ship. FURTHER—the Navy doesn’t buy just ONE banner like that—it buys DOZENS for every Carrier and Flagship in the Fleet. THIS is the only banner like it. PERIOD.
Lately, I’m in contact with GPO— I’ll bring it up to them and see what I can find out. This story of “happy-face denial” is the biggest bunch of HORSESHIT I’ve heard regarding this idiotic Photo-Op… I’m in the mood to do some digging—SOMEONE at GPO will be able to give me some answers. My print officer is there now— I’ll ask her to dig for me.
(my co-worker has become obsessed with this little tasker, BTW-- 10/28-03)
Even the simplest things are a reason to lie for these thugs. HOLY KORESH!
Allways FREE, and always yours,
Monkeyfister
(Tony B.)
Posted by Monkeyfister @ 10/28/2003 03:43 PM NY
i heard you calling in on randi's show about this. i've got to post this in conjuction with the piece from the nyt because it involves the same reporter. the video is still available. it's from 5/23. check out deaver's comments about the power of the television image. here's part of the transcript:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june03/presimage_05-23.html
Elaborate press events and public opinion
TERENCE SMITH: Elisabeth, in an article in The Times recently, you wrote of the extraordinary lengths to which the White House goes to frame the picture, so to speak, hiring lighting experts and setting it up so that the president looks his very best. Tell us a little bit about that.
ELISABETH BUMILLER: Well, Michael Deaver over here was, these are Deaver's children, in essence, these people working in the White House now, they all learned from the first term of Ronald Reagan.
But they've done some pretty extraordinary things. They've rented these giant lights that you use to light rock concerts.
And my favorite story was they took them over on barges across New York Harbor and tethered them at the Statue of Liberty and blasted them upward at the statue so you could see the Statue of Liberty, America's ultimate symbol of freedom illuminated behind the shoulder of President Bush when he gave his anniversary speech on September 11, 2002.
They've done similar things in Europe. One of their real trademarks is when the president speaks around the country, behind him, you see the message of the day -- and over and over again on the backdrop, strengthening the economy, helping small business. So if you just happen to catch a few moments of television on the news that night, and you don't hear what the president says, you see the message.
TERENCE SMITH: Well, as the father of this sort of thing, how do you...
MICHAEL DEAVER: I think it's absolutely brilliant. Look, if they weren't doing this, they wouldn't be at 70 percent. If they weren't doing this, they would be criticized. If they weren't doing this, the Democrats would have an issue with them because it wouldn't be working.
Eighty percent of the public gets all their information from television. And we, the president, the White House, now have to compete with 50 to 500 channels every time the person turns his channel selector on. So it better be interesting, entertaining, look good or they're going to switch off and watch something else.
TERENCE SMITH: Is there a thing as going too far? I mean, the Abraham Lincoln was -- the landing on the carrier was certainly controversial.
MICHAEL DEAVER: Look, it has to be credible. This president, I think, is the only one who could have gotten away with it except maybe Teddy Roosevelt. It has to be believable or the people are going to say it's not real.
TERENCE SMITH: And framing Mount Rushmore?
MICHAEL DEAVER: That may have gone a little too far.
TERENCE SMITH: A little over the top?
MICHAEL DEAVER: It was a little over the top.
TERENCE SMITH: Do you get a sense that the public responds positively or negatively to all of is this?
ELISABETH BUMILLER: I wrote a story recently about this and got emails in both directions. A lot of Democrats said "this is terrible, this is awful, how can this go on" -- that there was such staging of the president. But on the other hand, Bill Clinton did it, too. I mean Bill Clinton was pretty good at this. We just... I think what happened this time is that we all notice it because of the Abraham Lincoln and I began, you know, collecting some really good stories about it. But I have a sense that of course the Democrats are upset about it.
And they complained a lot, as you remember, about the Abraham Lincoln and really criticized the president about this very expensive political stunt.
TERENCE SMITH: Using an aircraft carrier, in effect, as a prop.
ELISABETH BUMILLER: As a prop for his future campaign.
TERENCE SMITH: You're smiling.
MICHAEL DEAVER: They're critical because it's working. That's the problem.
TERENCE SMITH: And you feel it really is contributing to his standing in the polls?
MICHAEL DEAVER: No question. No question. And they understand that because people get their information from looking at that box, those people in the White House are filling up that space around the box so it amplifies whatever the president is saying. So they're seeing and hearing it.
TERENCE SMITH: The public doesn't find this as cynical or manipulative?
MICHAEL DEAVER: I hate to tell you this, but television is an entertainment medium, not a news medium. I know...
TERENCE SMITH: I'm shocked.
ELISABETH BUMILLER: Perhaps the readers... there were a lot of letters in The New York Times after I wrote the story, and they found it cynical and manipulative. But, I guess there was a New York Times-CBS News poll where we asked this very question.
Do you approve of what the president did on the Abraham Lincoln, and almost 60 percent said yes, they agreed about the president, it was the right thing to do and they didn't see it as a method of political gain.
MICHAEL DEAVER: Why do you think The New York Times has gone to colored photography?
TERENCE SMITH: Exactly, it's all Mike Deaver's work. Mike Deaver and Elisabeth Bumiller, thank you very much.
Posted by jeff @ 10/28/2003 04:54 PM NY
Jeff,
Thank you for posting that transcript. At least deaver is honest able the poswer if Image.
Moneyfister,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience and technical expertise with this Site.
All-in-all, this is all terribly depressing. I understand the Style over Substance has been around since the beginning of time. What puts fire in my belly is how eagerly we seek the Image.
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 10/28/2003 06:24 PM NY
