If it's much ado about nothing, if "the president is looking forward to having just a conversation" with soldiers, then why coach soldiers as to who will answer what questions?

Generally, when I gather with friends or co-workers and we converse, I don't say, "Well, how is the weather? Weather questions I want to go to, ummmm, to Lisa."

But, a read of Shakespeare might be in order since this isn't proper English: "We got a strategy, and it's a clear strategy," Bush said.

Do you think a simple grasp of proper English and even basic speaking abilities are too much to ask of a Chief Executive Officer or Head of State (especially of a traditionally English speaking state)?

Generally when you get gather with coworkers to converse you are not televised. They were not given THE questions ahead of time, they were asked questions which the president might ask in an effort to make them more comfortable in front of the camera. Really nothing wrong with that.

Oops! That last sentence was not a proper sentence. I hope sally doesn't pick on me.

Do you think a simple grasp of proper English and even basic speaking abilities are too much to ask of a Chief Executive Officer or Head of State?

Overlooking your inherent bias for a moment, I think it is largely irrelevant. You confuse eloquence with strategic vision.

The White House's understandable desire to perfectly package the message screwed up the message. If you don't trust the men to respond appropriately then don't give them the mike.

That's almost as good as the 'Roe Vs. Wade' New Orleans statement by Bush - "I don't care how people get out of N.O. as long as they leave..."

then why coach soldiers as to who will answer what questions?

Obviously you have never been in front of a TV camera.

Its bad enough when you've done it a few times, the first time is very stressful and your mind almost goes blank.

Purple Avenger -

The troops told you that's why they needed the coaching? I'd think people who are under stress of being killed by a faceless enemy could handle the pressure of a TV camera. Then again, I don't know the reasons they needed coaching, so I don't feel compelled to speculate. It just seems that the transcript of the exchange with the White House official didn't appear that she was trying to calm nerves (especially not of 5 officers).

Sally, please see Michelle Malkin's site for comments from one of the soldiers (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003723.htm).

Sally,

You are out of your area of expertise (if that isn't an oxymoron). You know nothing about the military culture. The military is a caste system of sorts. There is a distinct rank structure that pinnacles at the president. Any soldier worth his/her salt would make preparations before dialoguing with the Commander In Chief. Right wrong or indifferent (to you) that's the way it is for disciplinary reasons that enable the winning of battles and wars. You may not respect this president, but the military makes up for you, in that they have an immense amount of respect for him.

As for the President's ability to speak, I'm certain that you alsways speak in complete grammatically correct English sentences, however you'll have to cut the rest of us common folks some slack, because we rarely speak in grammitacilly correct sentences. At least GWB hasn't had to ask what "is" is.

Old Soldier -

Wow, a personal attack so soon. At least we all see where you hold civility.

You raise some valid points. I think I'd caution against one thing. You don't know anything about me, where I'm from, what I've done - perhaps you shouldn't make claims when you don't know the facts.

Contrary to what you think, yes, I do know the military hierarchy as well as the structure of government. I, too, passed high school civics/American Government. Hopefully the White House telling which soldier to answer which question does, as you said, "enable the winning of battles and wars," as amusing as that sounds.

I think all I asked was, don't you think our leaders should at least be able to speak, I don't know, sensibly, or articulately, anything like that? I'd get into the content or veracity of his comments, but you can read about that in any news outlet.

Oh, is that a Clinton reference you're making? Hehehehe. That was a good one, I found that one amusing. It's almost as amusing as saying months ago that anyone involved in the CIA leak will be fired, then changing the story this past week to "No Comment."

Sally,

Take it personal if you desire... it wasn't meant that way. There are few things that will really rile me, but speaking ill or condescendingly toward the military will do it in a flash. You’ve just triggered a rant – so take it for what it is…

You are right in that I do not know anything about you. However, your comments make it blindingly obvious that you are not military savvy… you have spent not one day on active duty (I’m sure that is a fact), and I suspect that you do not have a close personal relationship with anyone in the military. Your academic achievements in American Government and civics hold no value to me (I lived 31 years active duty in the U.S. Army – spanning Vietnam, covert operations in Central America and the first Gulf War). I believe my service trumps your civics lesson.

“Hopefully the White House telling which soldier to answer which question does, as you said, "enable the winning of battles and wars," as amusing as that sounds.”

With this comment you graphically represent your lack of military experience or understanding. There are some basic fundamentals that underpin our successful military… and discipline is the foundational principle. Without discipline, overwhelming fire power, technology, etc. won’t win a battle. That discipline drives the military to make sure they “get things right.” Even in something as benign (benign in the scheme of war fighting) as a conversation with the president is going to be practiced and, yes, that includes knowing before hand what questions will be asked. Soldiers are not taught Public Speaking 101 in basic and advanced individual training programs (in the foxhole, it helps little in winning the battle at hand), so the DOD coach was there to be exactly what she was – as coach (someone with knowledge and experience to provide guidance).

One of the top military priorities (which have nothing to do with war fighting) is public relations/public opinion. Without a good public opinion the military doesn’t receive funding to needed levels. Without funding, the military can’t update equipment, maintain strengths, etc., necessary to be effective to fight and win battles/wars. Without the proper funding, more people die prosecuting the war. Therefore, the military is self conscious, so to speak, when it interfaces or interacts with the public – even when the president is involved (especially when the president is involved).

From your American Government and civics classes you may have learned that there is a rank structure, but what you have no appreciation for is the fact that most junior personnel are to a certain extent intimidated by very senior of high rank and become nervous when speaking to them; like in the case of very senior generals, admirals, and ultimately the Commander In Chief. To prevent the more junior personnel from appearing incapable of speaking to the CINC, coaching and practice is applied, just like any other noteworthy event. Lawyers coach and brief witnesses, news media people coach and brief interviewees, and on and on… It is unreasonable to be critical of coaching the young soldiers who were to converse with their CINC.

Lastly, concerning; “…don't you think our leaders should at least be able to speak, I don't know, sensibly, or articulately, anything like that?” Do you mean like John Kerry, Robert Byrd, and any other public speaker who is conversing with their audience rather than presenting a prepared “scripted” speech? Conversationally, you do not orate the same way you do in prepared speaking. Extemporaneously, your thoughts change and so you change your words in mid sentence. Unless you chose to tenaciously dog any of the Democrat or liberal speakers/leaders of scripted appearances (like Clinton in Normandy, of John I-actually-voted-for-the-57-Billion-before-I-voted-against-it Kerry), then you should hold your criticism for more meaningful subjects.