Whose Empty Rhetoric?

Critics of President Bush can't get enough of his so-called "publicity stunt" yesterday, in which he hosted a live video conference with American troops in Iraq.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the event a "highly scripted photo op," saying "We can and must do better than empty rhetoric."

Empty rhetoric? Telling our troops that we're never going to give up, never going to back down from ongoing terrorist threats, and that their sacrifices will not be made in vain is hardly "empty rhetoric." If anything, it's people like Harry Reid who are guilty of the empty rhetoric here.

Moreover, does any U.S. senator actually believe that live correspondence - barring such events as press conferences, of course - with the President of the United States shouldn't or wouldn't be rehearsed? What live feed with any senator wouldn't be? Considering these juvenile reactions to a simple video conference - just think about the type of backlash the president would face if any lack of coordination was broadcast - there's no wonder the administration wanted to ensure the dialogue went smoothly. After all, nothing was reported that would suggest that actual troop responses were scripted.

Perhaps the dumbest comment was made by Operation Truth director Paul Reickhoff, who apparently doesn't believe Americans received an accurate portrayal of troop opinion.

"If [Bush] wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

Well, one thing we know for certain is that this sure is unscripted asininity. Not only is every captain I know of on the ground with his guys, but note the transparency of this comment: If we can't trust captains to give us an accurate assessment of mission progress and troop morale, how can we trust a general? Or Don Rumsfeld? Or (gasp!) President Bush? It's all ONE BIG LIE! LIE, I TELL YOU!

Puh-leez.

Michelle Malkin rightly points out that journalists and other Bush opponents simply can't stand it that our troops actually support their president. Indeed, there's nothing unethical or improper about instructing troops how to act on and off duty. Just the opposite, it's part of their daily life and something in which they take much pride. However, if critics think this is so terrible, they may recall that during the Clinton presidency it was standard practice for commanding officers to remind their troops that it's inappropriate to heckle the commander-in-chief when he comes to visit.

But then again, they wouldn't acknowledge that in the first place, now would they?