Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

Has the U.S. ever pulled a "Wag The Dog"?

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Has the U.S. ever pulled a "Wag The Dog"?

Old 10-06-07, 07:44 PM
  #1  
Inane Thread Master, 2018 TOTY
Thread Starter
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
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.
Old 10-06-07, 07:51 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: in Bush territory!
Posts: 11,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think Slick Willy was the closest in remembrance with the Lewinski/Yugoslavia thing.
Old 10-06-07, 08:14 PM
  #3  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Of course Clinton is the first name mentioned. There's a shock.
Old 10-06-07, 08:23 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
movie diva's Avatar
 
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
Old 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.
maybe because the movie came out turning his term and there were 3 military actions around the same time as the Monica scandal?
Old 10-06-07, 09:21 PM
  #6  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: America!
Posts: 33,917
Received 162 Likes on 118 Posts
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?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
Old 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.
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.

Old 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.

Clinton smeared Monica's blue dress.
Old 10-07-07, 02:36 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog#Coincidence
Old 10-07-07, 03:58 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Land of the Lobstrosities
Posts: 10,300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Old 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.
Old 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.
I'm still going to go with Clinton being the closest.

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.
Old 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.
Nope, nope, Clinton is not conniving and deceitful at all.
Old 10-07-07, 07:22 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Out of Bounds
Thus my original comment.
they changed enough in the movie from the original book to make it comparable to clinton. movie came out in 1997 so give it 2-3 years to write a script, shoot and edit it. I forgot when the story about Monica came out, but in 1994 they probably took the older stories of past affairs and exaggerated a little

but to fake a war is impossible, the media would find out in a second
Old 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
"You give me the pictures, I'll give you the war." -William Randolph Hearst
Old 10-07-07, 11:54 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 42,265
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
Of course, many of the same people who yelled "Wag the Dog" in 1998 were complaining in 2001 (and thereafter) that President Clinton didn't do enough to try to stop Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Old 10-07-07, 11:57 AM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by al_bundy
but to fake a war is impossible, the media would find out in a second

Events of the last four years put the lie to this statement.
Old 10-07-07, 12:13 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 838
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm amused that people still focus on Clinton and Lewinsky when so much obviously worse stuff has happened since that time.
Old 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!
Old 10-07-07, 01:10 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
Old 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.
Old 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

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?
Old 10-07-07, 05:04 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 27,659
Received 828 Likes on 547 Posts
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?
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.)
Old 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.)

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.
Old 10-08-07, 07:22 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.