jeezus!..... selling a war!!

[doyler]

i have just read an article in the irish times about marketing to children and in it an outhor called susan linn ('consuming kids') says:

"in september 2002 when president bush's chief of staff was asked why the administration waited until the fall to launch its campaign for a war with iraq, his answer was 'from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"

[Bandraoi]

you wait for the Christmas rush?

[Kickstart]

you wait for the Christmas rush?

You wait for the House and Senate to return from August recess. They spend August working in their local districts.

[hi]

At which point you begin marketing the war?

[Kickstart]

At which point you begin marketing the war?

Yes. Marketing is "making a case" for something. The White House sought and obtained Congressional permission to invade by making a case for the invasion. Would your reaction be different if Card had said," You don't make your case for war in August"? Is the use of the word 'marketing' the issue?

[hi]

Bingo. You see nothing odd in the imminent deaths of thousands being 'marketed'?

[shimjimminy]

"lobbying" is probably more accurate.

[MadScientist]

Bingo. You see nothing odd in the imminent deaths of thousands being 'marketed'?
You are wasting your energy on this one. He is already lost to us.......

[Kickstart]

Bingo. You see nothing odd in the imminent deaths of thousands being 'marketed'?

What would the alternative be? Just ask Congress for permission to invade without any details or explanation? Ordering the invasion without giving Congress any reasons would not only be odd, it would get the President impeached and removed from office. He could order limited military engagement via the War Powers Act, but even then he has to get budget approval. I can't imagine any of this occorring without someone explaining the reasons for the invasion or "making the case" or yes "marketing" which is essentially the same thing.

I think you and I just have a different opinion on whether marketing is a dirty word. To me it happens all day every day between individuals, companies, and even here. The White House markets its ideas to Congress, and vise versa on a broad range of issues every year.

[Kickstart]

"lobbying" is probably more accurate.

Agreed - that would have been a far better choice of word, but the meaning is essentially the same (to me, anyway)

[Sine Qua Non]

'from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"

Sorry, but where has that statement got anything to do with when congress is in session or not Kickstart? You are really reaching to try and justify what is obviously equating waging war with marketing and selling a new product.

[Kickstart]

Sorry, but where has that statement got anything to do with when congress is in session or not Kickstart? You are really reaching to try and justify what is obviously equating waging war with marketing and selling a new product.

I don't think so. My position has nothing to do with justifying the invasion. Whether you want to call it marketing, lobbying or whatever...you have to have an audience to do it. I think we just have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the word "marketing". When Congress was back in session, many members were marketing/lobbying/arguing for an antiwar position to the American people, other Congressman and the White House.

[Sine Qua Non]

He said "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce products in August" That bears no relation to "We have to wait for Congress to be in session" At best it was a crass, stupid and mindbogglingly insensitive expression to use when talking about going to war, at worst it justifies a lot of peoples point of view that the war was nothing but a profit making exercise for the american government.

Regardless of your opinions on the justifications for the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, you should really accept that Americans are human too, and are capable of making stupid, thoughtless comments. You're desparate attempts to explain the statement away show that you are just as guilty of narrowminded bigotry as the people who automatically asssume that everything America does is wrong.

It is possible to be in the wrong and for it not to be the end of the world.

[Evil Dave]

The real word is not 'lobbying' It's propaganda, And they probably weren't aiming their marketing at Congress and the Senate, they were marketing to the American people. Propaganda by the government is illegal under American law but this does not stop the Republican administration paying large sums of money to syndicated collumists, radio and television personalities to endorse and promote certain controvertial government policies.
They have no respect for 'democracy'

[Kickstart]

The whole article is about timing, which is the only thing I addressed.

From "TRACES OF TERROR: THE STRATEGY; Bush Aides Set Strategy to Sell Policy on Iraq"

By ELISABETH BUMILLER (NYT) 1127 words
Published: September 7, 2002

Setting up Andrew Card's quote:
The White House decided, they said, that even with the appearance of disarray it was still more advantageous to wait until after Labor Day to kick off their plan.

''From a marketing point of view,'' said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff who is coordinating the effort, ''you don't introduce new products in August.''

Further down, after a description of the President's upcoming speech:

On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, the administration has begun a full-scale lobbying campaign. On the day after Labor Day, the opening of Washington's political new year, Mr. Bush summoned a skeptical Congressional leadership to the White House to enlist their support for action against Iraq. The next day two dozen senators from both parties were invited to the Pentagon to discuss Iraqi policy with Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence.

Yeah...I'm the narrow minded one.

[Sine Qua Non]

Regardless of what he meant, it's still a stupid phrase to use. Or do you just not bother to read what anyone else posts?

[hi]

I take it all back. Describing war as a product to be marketed is a fabulous use of the language, with no implicit disregard for the sanctity of human life whatsoever.

[Drifter2]

Set phasers to 'sark', men.

[Kickstart]

Regardless of what he meant, it's still a stupid phrase to use. Or do you just not bother to read what anyone else posts?

FIne, it's stupid. Who cares what the guy actually means? It is far more important to by hypersensitive.

[hi]

No, it's more important to not start resource wars at the cost of thousands of civilian lives under the pretence that Wisconsinites are about to be murdered in their beds.

[Sine Qua Non]

FIne, it's stupid. Who cares what the guy actually means? It is far more important to by hypersensitive.
Surely it's important to be clear and unambiguous, especially concerning war. And damn right I'm hypersensitive, when invasion of a sovereign state without international backing is being talked about like selling baked beans I get a mite concerned about terminology

[Kickstart]

No, it's more important to not start resource wars at the cost of thousands of civilian lives under the pretence that Wisconsinites are about to be murdered in their beds.

I agree with you 100%...and what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Card explaining the timing of his strategy in response to a reporter's question.

[hi]

You don't think the language used offers an insight into the administration's cavalier attitude to such inconvenient concepts as international law, sovereignty and the right to not see your family bombed to shit because some rich westerners have been fed a mess of lies?

[Kickstart]

You don't think the language used offers an insight into the administration's cavalier attitude to such inconvenient concepts as international law, sovereignty and the right to not see your family bombed to shit because some rich westerners have been fed a mess of lies?

I can't believe this. The article wasn't even about the invasion. It was a "nuts and bolts" backgrounder on how the White House would push its agenda. It could have been any issue - it could have been Social Security and he could have used the exact same language.

I looked at the quote and I knew exactly what he meant. You chose to read something nefarious into it and now you're dredging up two-year-old "oil grab" bullsmack. I am amazed and entertained.

[Sine Qua Non]

So you're ignoring my opinion completely? Ok, so you don't think language concerning planning for war should be clear and unambiguous

[hi]

I am amazed and entertained.
As am I. Lebensraum redux, and just as easy to sell to the masses this time around.

[Kickstart]

So you're ignoring my opinion completely? Ok, so you don't think language concerning planning for war should be clear and unambiguous

I apologize for my insensitivity...now, your opinion, yes...let me see. Ah yes - HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE WAR. He wasn't even talking about planning for the war; that's not even part of his job. All he was saying was that someone has to be there to listen if you're going to push ANY agenda.

[hi]

The agenda to which he was referring was what, again?

Oh, yes. That eye-rak business.

[Sine Qua Non]

I apologize for my insensitivity...now, your opinion, yes...let me see. Ah yes - HE WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE WAR. He wasn't even talking about planning for the war; that's not even part of his job. All he was saying was that someone has to be there to listen if you're going to push ANY agenda.


Erm, did you actually read the original post? What was he referring to if not the plans for the war? i.e. what he was being asked about.

"in september 2002 when president bush's chief of staff was asked why the administration waited until the fall to launch its campaign for a war with iraq, his answer was 'from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"

Specifically with reference to the campaign for the war in Iraq. You're just talking rubbish now.

[Baldy]

/me hands Kickstart a shovel

[Kickstart]

Erm, did you actually read the original post? What was he referring to if not the plans for the war? i.e. what he was being asked about.

"in september 2002 when president bush's chief of staff was asked why the administration waited until the fall to launch its campaign for a war with iraq, his answer was 'from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"

Specifically with reference to the campaign for the war in Iraq. You're just talking rubbish now.

You know - that's a great question. I did not read the original post. I blindfolded myself, clicked and typed. Miraculously, my post was backed up by the original article in the New York Times, which stated that yes, the White House actually wanted to wait until the House and Senate returned to Washington DC so they could communicate with them.

Can we just agree that you believe Mr. Card was being insensitive and that I believe he was innocently invoking a common marketing rule?

[Spanky]

No.

and some other characters.

[Sine Qua Non]

But where does all this bollocks about him not talking about the war come from? He was specifically being asked about preparations for the war and you're suddenly saying that he wasn't referring to it?

[hi]

Can we just agree that you believe Mr. Card was being insensitive and that I believe he was innocently invoking a common marketing rule?
Innocent my ass. Are you seriously trying to say you see no issue with corporate language being used to describe the instigation of actions which would result in thousands of deaths?

[Kickstart]

But where does all this bollocks about him not talking about the war come from? He was specifically being asked about preparations for the war and you're suddenly saying that he wasn't referring to it?

In the words of Mugatu, I feel like I'm on crazy pills.

Read the article. It's not about the war. It's not about the the plan for the war. It is about when the White House was going to make its case to Congress and the people. If you recall, there was a time when troops were being amassed near the Iraqi border and the White House wasn't saying much...they were waiting for the appropriate audience.

"You don't introduce new products in August" means "You don't waste your time explaining things when no one is around."

It's common sense - no one is in town. The House, the Senate and the Washington press corp are all gone.

The underlying question in the article was, "When are you going to tell us what the plan is? And, what is the process for getting buy-in from Congress and the nation?" It had nothing to do with the substance of the plan. It was a process-related question and he gave a response that immediately made sense to me and immediately offended others. So be it.


helloinsane: I can tell you're really pissed about the war. There is nothing I can do about it but your posts don't seem to have much to do with the topic anymore so I don't know what to say.

[Sparks]

"You don't introduce new products in August" means "You don't waste your time explaining things when no one is around."
It's common sense - no one is in town. The House, the Senate and the Washington press corp are all gone.

In other words, it was known well ahead of the actual invasion that the threat was not an immediate one, despite what was repeatedly stated and stressed - that Saddam was an actual, immediate, serious threat to western nations.

[Spanky]

And he was such an immediate, serious threat, that the marketing campaign to remove him was delayed in line with market research on study groups and blind taste tests.

[hi]

It was a process-related question and he gave a response that immediately made sense to me and immediately offended others. So be it.
I am envious of your ability to separate the process from the eventuality.

[Sine Qua Non]

Actually, I think Kickstart has hit on a whole new type of media relations here. You can be asked a question about a subject, answer the question on the same subject, but still supply no guarantees that the subject about which you were responding, is the subject about which you were actually talking.


As any fule kno

[ArseBurger]

you wait for the Christmas rush?
Careful! Only 46 weeks to go!!!

[dr_bob]

On a related note
What pissed me off about that article was (and I have it here now) when it starts wittering on kids being sold toys and clothes etc that are way too mature for them , it quotes FAO schwartz top selling video game was GTA:vice city , and I quote the next bit " in which the hero kills a prostitute after having sex with her"
this is bad journalism on many levels ,
A/ the game carries an 18's rating here ,and an R rating in the states same as a dvd , so a child couldnt buy it , and the store arent suposed to sell it to someone who's obviously giving it to a kid.If they do , then they should be checking what there giving they're kids , if they dont its bad parenting , and the blame falls on them , simple as that.
B/ the acts mentioned above are taken out of context , yeah its possible to actually sleep with a hooker in the game , but it >is< a game for adults , .Also you dont >have< to , something the above sentence alludes.Again it is possible to kill people in the game, and it would be possible to kill her after the act, but you're penalised for this.Again if you're reading the above quote you would assume you have to do this to progress, turning the game from its true nature , an enjoyable "goodfellas" pastiche , wrapped up in an fully playable interactive driving game , into some sort of "henry: porttrait of a serial killer" sick fantasy.

Anyway that one quote ruined the article for me , since I know thats shoddy one sided journalism , how much else of it is badly researched shite ??..

[Kickstart]

Actually, I think Kickstart has hit on a whole new type of media relations here. You can be asked a question about a subject, answer the question on the same subject, but still supply no guarantees that the subject about which you were responding, is the subject about which you were actually talking.


As any fule kno

So... you have this picture that appears as part of your ID for each post. I have no idea what it is. It looks to me like a performer wearing blackface...I am probably wrong. Where I come from, the image of a man wearing blackface is considered racially insensitive and insulting to African Americans.

Does my (probably incorrect) perception of your using the image of a performer wearing blackface make you an insensitive racist? Does it demonstrate your "cavalier attitude" about minorities and minority issues?

If Card's response to the question was so war-specific, why does it work in virtually every example one could present?

Mr. Card, why did you wait until Fall to push the President's healthcare agenda?
Mr. Card, why did you wait until Fall to introduce the President's tax reform package?
Mr. Card, why did you wait until Fall to announce the President's Faith Based Initiative?

"From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"

The entire NYT article was about timing. The author twice stated that the White House was waiting until Congress returned to start presenting its plan.

[Sparks]

"From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'"
The entire NYT article was about timing. The author twice stated that the White House was waiting until Congress returned to start presenting its plan. That's the whole point Kick. A war is supposed to be something that you don't have any choice in starting. It's meant to be an emergency situation, a situation of last resort in fact. So to say that they waited for the right time to market it, means that it was a planned action. And to say that they waited to market it makes it obvious that they knew Saddam was not an immediate threat to them, because if he had been, then they couldn't have afforded to wait for the right time to pitch a sales campaign for the idea of invading Iraq.

[dr_bob]

So... you have this picture that appears as part of your ID for each post. I have no idea what it is. It looks to me like a performer wearing blackface...I am probably wrong. Where I come from, the image of a man wearing blackface is considered racially insensitive and insulting to African Americans.

Does my (probably incorrect) perception of your using the image of a performer wearing blackface make you an insensitive racist? Does it demonstrate your "cavalier attitude" about minorities and minority issues?

?
n.

sigh....
SQN's avatar is from a UK comedy show called the leauge of gentlemen, taken out of context it probably could be seen as insensitive , but seeing as this is an Irish/Uk based board and the majority of posters know what its about its not....

if any christians or shellfish find my avatar offensive you kiss my arse ...

[MadScientist]

A war is supposed to be something that you don't have any choice in starting. It's meant to be an emergency situation, a situation of last resort in fact.Not anymore apparently......"everything changed after 9/11". The US can do what it wants now. Your argument about war being a last resort is SO 20th century!! The paradigm has shifted!!

[Lanod]

A war is supposed to be something that you don't have any choice in starting.
source?

[Sparks]

source? The Nuremberg Principles (http://www.rise4news.net/Nuremberg_Principles.html), Principle 6 (a):
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

[Lanod]

sparks - that is meaningless and unenforceable and says nothing aboout choice. The allies had an option not to declare war against Germany.

[Sparks]

sparks - that is meaningless and unenforceable and says nothing aboout choice. Firstly, they're not meaningless.
Secondly, they've not been enforced yet. That doesn't mean they can't be, and in fact there's even a mechanism to enforce them, if SCOTUS was to fulfill all it's original purpose.
Thirdly, they point out that planning a war of aggression is a crime; and planning a war of aggression implies a choice in the matter because planning a war of self-defence implies that someone else has already thrown the first punch. And last time I looked, you could throw the first punch or have the first punch thrown at you, but there wasn't much in the way of a third option.

The allies had an option not to declare war against Germany. Sure did. Those principles were drafted in 1950, of course, but sure you can use any precedent (including the event that was so bad that it prompted their drafting) to prove that they're silly.

[Sine Qua Non]

?

If Card's response to the question was so war-specific, why does it work in virtually every example one could present?
.

Because he's being asked about the war. Any decent, reasonable human being doesn't use the same language to sell baked beans as you do to justify war. How can you not get this through your skull? How can you not see why people would be upset by this.
I give up. I made the mistake of thinking you were capable of rational argument, but to see the idiotic knots you tie yourself in just to defend the indefensible is laughable

[jam_mac_jam]

sparks - that is meaningless and unenforceable and says nothing aboout choice. The allies had an option not to declare war against Germany.
Yes they did have a choice but Hitler took over Poland, which is a little different as a justification for war then imaginary weapons and little or no threat to the US. In world war two the US didn’t go to war until it was attacked by Japan not because Japan looked like it might have weapons the US didn’t like.

Not a valid comparison at all.

[Little Imp]

Not a valid comparison at all.
Agreed. Though I wish you'd added the words "you fuckwit" to the end of that last line.

[Lanod]

Firstly, they're not meaningless.
Secondly, they've not been enforced yet. That doesn't mean they can't be, and in fact there's even a mechanism to enforce them, if SCOTUS was to fulfill all it's original purpose.
Thirdly, they point out that planning a war of aggression is a crime; and planning a war of aggression implies a choice in the matter because planning a war of self-defence implies that someone else has already thrown the first punch. And last time I looked, you could throw the first punch or have the first punch thrown at you, but there wasn't much in the way of a third option.

Sure did. Those principles were drafted in 1950, of course, but sure you can use any precedent (including the event that was so bad that it prompted their drafting) to prove that they're silly.
True - I sort of forgot the principles were drafted after WWII. Major doh.

The problem is that one person's war of aggression is another's defensive pre-emptive strike (right or wrong). The first punch analogy doesn't hold because implicit in it is 'oh - he's hit me - I shall now hit him back'. A country could argue that the consequences of a first strike/punch could be so severe so as to render them unable to respond or just too severe in itself. Again rightly or wrongly. There is no mechanism to enforce any international law when the country is one of the super-powers. That's why I say they are meaningless.

Anyway this is about 'selling' a war. Whether you are on the right side or wrong side propaganda, marketing or whatever is as essential as bullets.

[Sparks]

The problem is that one person's war of aggression is another's defensive pre-emptive strike (right or wrong). Defensive preemption? Bit of a major oxymoron there, isn't it?

The first punch analogy doesn't hold because implicit in it is 'oh - he's hit me - I shall now hit him back'. A country could argue that the consequences of a first strike/punch could be so severe so as to render them unable to respond or just too severe in itself. Again rightly or wrongly. It does hold - there's a period of time between the punch being thrown and the punch landing. For example, if Iraq was to develop an ICBM and nuclear weapons, it couldn't be done without everyone knowing about it, because it requires testing and so forth. Thing is, that wouldn't warrant invasion. As shown by Israel and Iran...

There is no mechanism to enforce any international law when the country is one of the super-powers. That's why I say they are meaningless. Tell that to the WTO over tarrifs on steel.

Anyway this is about 'selling' a war. Whether you are on the right side or wrong side propaganda, marketing or whatever is as essential as bullets. The whole point is that if that marketing is taking place six months ahead of the war, the war is not an immediate necessity. Immediate necessities do not require marketing.

[Lanod]

You are dead right about the WTO - they can enforce something if they want to.

I would have thought Defensive preemption was more of a tautology myself.

Look propaganda and marketing are the same thing. A country can have a strategic view and think 'looks like we could be at war with these guys at some stage in the future - let's make sure our people really hate them'.

[Kickstart]

Because he's being asked about the war. Any decent, reasonable human being doesn't use the same language to sell baked beans as you do to justify war. How can you not get this through your skull? How can you not see why people would be upset by this.
I give up. I made the mistake of thinking you were capable of rational argument, but to see the idiotic knots you tie yourself in just to defend the indefensible is laughable

One question, and I'm done. Did you read the article? None of your posts seems to indicate that you have. Come to think of it, the posted article quoting the original article is incorrect. There is no evidence of any question being asked of Mr. Card...just a floating quote fitting within the context of the article. There is absolutely no evidence that he was being asked about the war. Please just read it and show me where he is "justifying the war". No twists....just read it and show me.

[Sparks]

One question, and I'm done. Did you read the article? None of your posts seems to indicate that you have. Come to think of it, the posted article quoting the original article is incorrect. There is no evidence of any question being asked of Mr. Card...just a floating quote fitting within the context of the article. There is absolutely no evidence that he was being asked about the war. Please just read it and show me where he is "justifying the war". No twists....just read it and show me.
From the very first post in the thread:
in september 2002 when president bush's chief of staff was asked why the administration waited until the fall to launch its campaign for a war with iraq, his answer was 'from a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in august.'

[Kickstart]

From the very first post in the thread:

Right. If you read the actual NYT article, the question is never asked.

[Lanod]

Right. If you read the actual NYT article, the question is never asked.
Yeah - except this thread is about an Irish Times article

[Kickstart]

Yeah - except this thread is about an Irish Times article

The author of which is quoting the NYT article.

[Sparks]

And few other sources agree with your evaluation Kick.

[Kickstart]

And few other sources agree with your evaluation Kick.

I would be interested in learning what you think my evaluation is.

[Sparks]

Right. If you read the actual NYT article, the question is never asked. How is it never asked? The original article was on how the war was being sold to congress!

[Sparks]

I would be interested in learning what you think my evaluation is. That there was no dichotomy between the planned marketing of a war over a period of several months and the idea that the war was a necessity to prevent an imminent attack from an immediate threat.

[Kickstart]

How is it never asked? The original article was on how the war was being sold to congress!

I am BEGGING you to show me the question.

[murph2]

Kick rarely begs.

[Kickstart]

That there was no dichotomy between the planned marketing of a war over a period of several months and the idea that the war was a necessity to prevent an imminent attack from an immediate threat.

NO!

Mr. Card's comment had everything to do with the best time to communicate the proposed policy and nothing to do with the policy itself. That's it! Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sparks]

Mr. Card's comment had everything to do with the best time to communicate the proposed policy and nothing to do with the policy itself. That's it! Nothing more, nothing less. Implied within that statement is the assertion that there was sufficent time in which to properly plan out a campaign to sell the war. Which wholly refutes the idea that the war was a necessary act of self-defence. If Saddam had been a real and immediate threat, there wouldn't have been time to carefully plan out a marketing strategy, it would have been necessary to take immediate action. Instead, you have a marketing strategy, which wasn't kicked off for some time so as to wait until the most opportune time.

[Kickstart]

Implied within that statement is the assertion that there was sufficent time in which to properly plan out a campaign to sell the war. Which wholly refutes the idea that the war was a necessary act of self-defence. If Saddam had been a real and immediate threat, there wouldn't have been time to carefully plan out a marketing strategy, it would have been necessary to take immediate action. Instead, you have a marketing strategy, which wasn't kicked off for some time so as to wait until the most opportune time.

Beautifully written... and has nothing to do with this thread. That is the second time you've attempted to change the subject. Why don't you just start a new thread?

[Sparks]

Beautifully written... and has nothing to do with this thread. That is the second time you've attempted to change the subject. Why don't you just start a new thread? Don't get it, do you? That is the point of the thread. You Don't Market A War. It's something that's forced on you, without regard for marketing timetables. If you have time to plan and market it, then you're not pursuing other options, which means you're planning a war of aggression, which is a crime against humanity by definition.

[Spanky]

Implied within that statement is the assertion that there was sufficent time in which to properly plan out a campaign to sell the war. Which wholly refutes the idea that the war was a necessary act of self-defence. If Saddam had been a real and immediate threat, there wouldn't have been time to carefully plan out a marketing strategy, it would have been necessary to take immediate action. Instead, you have a marketing strategy, which wasn't kicked off for some time so as to wait until the most opportune time.
Ah, be fair now.

It takes a bit of time to set up all the licenced franchise deals and make up all the merchandise...

"My Daddy when to Eye-Rack and all I got was this Lousy Bodybag" etc.

[Kickstart]

Don't get it, do you? That is the point of the thread. You Don't Market A War. It's something that's forced on you, without regard for marketing timetables. If you have time to plan and market it, then you're not pursuing other options, which means you're planning a war of aggression, which is a crime against humanity by definition.

Uncle! I quit this thread. My first post is my official position on this thread. Please read the article. Please take the quote in context.