Has the U.S. ever pulled a "Wag The Dog"?
10-06-07, 07:44 PM
#1
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 45,628
Received 490 Likes
on
432 Posts
Has the U.S. ever pulled a "Wag The Dog"?
as in the movie...by perpetrating a farce to take heat off of another scandal that the U.S. or a high official was involved in? And is there verifiable proof?
And why do they call it "Wag The Dog"?
Thanks in advance.
And why do they call it "Wag The Dog"?
Thanks in advance.
10-06-07, 08:23 PM
#4
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail was smarter, the tail would wag the dog."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog
10-06-07, 09:07 PM
#5
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live.
Posts: 29,783
Received 10 Likes
on
5 Posts
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
Of course Clinton is the first name mentioned. There's a shock.
10-06-07, 09:21 PM
#6
Moderator
Originally Posted by mikehunt
maybe because the movie came out turning his term and there were 3 military actions around the same time as the Monica scandal?
10-06-07, 11:54 PM
#7
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wendersfan
Nah, that couldn't be it.
10-07-07, 01:07 AM
#8
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: West Central Georgia
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
Of course the Republican campaign to smear Clinton with the "wag the dog" label couldn't have had anything to do with it either. Nope. No how, no way. The Republicans have NEVER tried to smear Clinton. They're pure as the driven snow.
10-07-07, 02:36 AM
#9
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Less than a month after the movie was released, President Bill Clinton was embroiled in a sex scandal arising from his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Over the course of 1998 and early 1999, as the scandal dominated American politics, the US engaged in three military operations: Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign in Iraq that took place as the U.S. House of Representatives debated articles of impeachment against Clinton; Operation Infinite Reach, a pair of missile strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan three days after Clinton admitted in a nationally televised address that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky; and Operation Allied Force, a 78-day-long NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that began weeks after Clinton was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial.
In a further coincidence, the missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan were announced by the White House moments before the beginning of a press conference in which Lewinsky was to give details of her appearance before Congress.
Critics, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, charged that the former operation was an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal, and Serb state television went so far as to broadcast Wag The Dog in the midst of NATO attacks on Serbia.
The video cassette version of the film contains an extended feature after the credits that has commentary about the movie in the context of the Lewinsky scandal by the producers of the movie and Tom Brokaw.
In a further coincidence, the missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan were announced by the White House moments before the beginning of a press conference in which Lewinsky was to give details of her appearance before Congress.
Critics, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, charged that the former operation was an attempt to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal, and Serb state television went so far as to broadcast Wag The Dog in the midst of NATO attacks on Serbia.
The video cassette version of the film contains an extended feature after the credits that has commentary about the movie in the context of the Lewinsky scandal by the producers of the movie and Tom Brokaw.
10-07-07, 04:19 AM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wmansir
It's amusing that Clinton became the poster boy for the phrase Wag the Dog when the film was based on a book that attempted to smear H.W. Bush.
Thus my original comment.
10-07-07, 04:28 AM
#12
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: In a Academy Award nominated film
Posts: 2,752
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
Thus my original comment.
To be honest, I don't think Clinton was trying to pull a wag the dog, it just happened that he was messing with Monica while military action was taking place. Clinton is a lot of things, but being so conniving and deceitful as to pull a "wag the dog", he is not.
Last edited by Lemdog; 10-07-07 at 04:32 AM.
10-07-07, 05:59 AM
#13
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemdog
Clinton is a lot of things, but being so <b>conniving and deceitful</b> as to pull a "wag the dog", he is not.
10-07-07, 07:22 AM
#14
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
Thus my original comment.
but to fake a war is impossible, the media would find out in a second
10-07-07, 07:36 AM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Working for Gizmonic Institute
Posts: 10,428
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by al_bundy
but to fake a war is impossible, the media would find out in a second
10-07-07, 11:54 AM
#16
DVD Talk Hero
Less than a month after the movie was released, President Bill Clinton was embroiled in a sex scandal arising from his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Over the course of 1998 and early 1999, as the scandal dominated American politics, the US engaged in three military operations: Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign in Iraq that took place as the U.S. House of Representatives debated articles of impeachment against Clinton; Operation Infinite Reach, a pair of missile strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan three days after Clinton admitted in a nationally televised address that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky; and Operation Allied Force, a 78-day-long NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that began weeks after Clinton was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial.
10-07-07, 12:40 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still don't understand why people are still so loyal to both parties and their presidents, because the last three presidents have been crap. The lies they tell to the ignorant US media and lets face it...the American public deserves what we get. To get my news I have to go to foreign countries to read their news, to actually find out about this country.
Both parties suck big time, they could careless about our country only their own party. Screw them all!
Both parties suck big time, they could careless about our country only their own party. Screw them all!
10-07-07, 01:10 PM
#20
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by crazyronin
"You give me the pictures, I'll give you the war." -William Randolph Hearst
if there is a war the BBC, Reuters, AP and UPI will send in reporters who are prepositioned all around the world. if they don't see bombing, death and destruction they will say so in hours. people who have cellphone cameras will be emailing videos to the outside world for posting on youtube. civilian satellites will easily confirm if the navy is where they say they are.
with modern databases like Lexis-Nexis anytime a name is mentioned you can quickly find out a lot of things about that person, like if he is serving time in Fort Leavenworth for raping someone
10-07-07, 02:33 PM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sjrab16
The lies they tell to the ignorant US media and lets face it...the American public deserves what we get.
I disagree with this statement very strongly. Any politician is going to lie. It's part of the job description. However, the press, in the form of print, television and Web based media, is more culpable for spreading lies than the politicians are for telling them. The media has a responsibility to expose public officials who lie, but in the current, entertainment dominated media environment, most news outlets simply publish press releases and politicians' public statements without doing even cursory fact checking. It's not ignorance; it's willful abandonment of basic journalistic principles. The American public does NOT deserve a lazy, profit driven media that has no interest in real journalism and reportage. The public deserves better from their media and their politicians. They won't get the second until they get the first.
10-07-07, 02:39 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by al_bundy
if there is a war the BBC, Reuters, AP and UPI will send in reporters who are prepositioned all around the world. if they don't see bombing, death and destruction they will say so in hours. people who have cellphone cameras will be emailing videos to the outside world for posting on youtube. civilian satellites will easily confirm if the navy is where they say they are.
with modern databases like Lexis-Nexis anytime a name is mentioned you can quickly find out a lot of things about that person, like if he is serving time in Fort Leavenworth for raping someone
with modern databases like Lexis-Nexis anytime a name is mentioned you can quickly find out a lot of things about that person, like if he is serving time in Fort Leavenworth for raping someone
That's a bunch of idealistic dreck. In an age of embedded "reporters" and news agencies that have been shutting down their foreign desks en masse, it's absurd to think that they'd be in a position to expose anything. The major media entities in America could have easily refuted all the Bush administration's claims about WMD, al Qaeda connections and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq before the war started there, but they didn't. Why do you think they'd suddenly do a better job now?
10-07-07, 05:04 PM
#23
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
That's a bunch of idealistic dreck. In an age of embedded "reporters" and news agencies that have been shutting down their foreign desks en masse, it's absurd to think that they'd be in a position to expose anything. The major media entities in America could have easily refuted all the Bush administration's claims about WMD, al Qaeda connections and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq before the war started there, but they didn't. Why do you think they'd suddenly do a better job now?
(BTW, I was listening to Pacifica Reports at the time, and they asserted that a lot of Bush's reasons for war were false. If you only read establishment media, you're only going to get establishment news.)
10-07-07, 05:25 PM
#24
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Maybe not. But you're talking about scrutinizing the President's reasons for going to war. Do you think they'd be unable to figure out that there was no troops on the ground at all?
(BTW, I was listening to Pacifica Reports at the time, and they asserted that a lot of Bush's reasons for war were false. If you only read establishment media, you're only going to get establishment news.)
(BTW, I was listening to Pacifica Reports at the time, and they asserted that a lot of Bush's reasons for war were false. If you only read establishment media, you're only going to get establishment news.)
Of course I do. How many Americans know that there are more independent security forces (180k) fighting in Iraq than there are US servicemen? How many people know what's going on with the day to day conflicts in Iraq? We lose close to 3 men a day and close to 20 are injured so badly that they can't return to service (blown off arms, legs, eyes and so forth) but there's no coverage whatsoever. As far as many people are concerned, there's no war going on at all. If the government tells the press that there's no war, and the press does what it's always done lately (fail to fact check) then they'll report that there's no war. End of story. The idea that there's a significant and effective independent media is flatly absurd IMO. What you call the "establishment media" is what the vast majority of people consume.
10-08-07, 07:22 AM
#25
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
As far as many people are concerned, there's no war going on at all. If the government tells the press that there's no war, and the press does what it's always done lately (fail to fact check) then they'll report that there's no war.
you really think that? Then why wouldn't Bush say there is no war going on and up his approval ratings?
