BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 06:26 PM

This is how it should have happened:

GWB: Put out an announcement that I am visiting Iraq to have Thanksgiving dinner with the troops. Dammit, I am their CinC.

Aide: But sir, there will probably be people there waiting to attack you.

GWB: Bring 'em on!

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 03:31 PM

I have always believed that a good leader is aware of his/her weaknesses, and will choose a cabinet of people who can make up for those shortcomings.

Sorry, Kim, but in this case the "Cabinet" chose Dumbya as their front man quite a while before the election, not the other way 'round.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 12:10 PM

People who have been schooled in critical thought and intelligent debate know enough to first question the predicate. Those who are not skilled in these areas, when confronted with questions that are outside their ability to respond to (because they fall outside their preconceived notions and pat answers), ignore the question. When confronted their only response is to say "forget it, you will never be happy".

Of course this was a photo op, and a play to overcome a perceptual problem. All politicians do this, including the ones I have supported over the years. It is not uncommon to use what is available in current events. Are the mans actions hypocritical, given what he is doing legislatively? Absolutely. This "Patriot President" is doing all he can to destroy the American Middle Class and increase the gap between the have and have nots in this country. You can see it every day in the lost manufacturing jobs, an economy that is increasing in its profits, but creating no new jobs (in this country, at least), and a business sector that is perfectly willing to sacrifice our standard of living in favor of increased profitability coming from emerging countries.

Is he sincere about visiting our troops? I believe he is very sincere in his admiration of them and their sacrifice. In fact, within the very narrow scope of lifting morale of these soldiers, I applaud him. In the larger scope of his policies, he should be condemned for putting them there without a follow on plan for the restoration of the country; without adequate funding to accomplish it; and for endangering them with a misogynistic, "America is the greatest..." attitude.

In reading this debate, it is clear to me that Peter T, even though it is crystal clear he despises the man, is right on. He asks the tough questions that the supporters of GWB refuse to answer. His answer to the issue of whether the President has time is absolutely right on. Just a phone call, anything. Of course, the answer to the question is very simple, though, friend Peter. The President has a duty to do those things that will keep up public support for his policies. That is not wrong. It would make no sense whatever for him to do any public thing that would decrease support for a policy that he believes (presumably)is the right thing to do. Were he to draw attention to the dead, it would result in a loss of public support for a policy that he believes is correct. Were I in his shoes, I likely would do the same thing. Rather than try to paint him as an evil man with less than honorable intentions (I do not think this is totally true), it is much better to show that his plans in this arena and others, is just plain faulty. The outcome is becoming easier to see all the time.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:50 AM

This was event orchestrated to suck in people who aren't politically savvy, looking for feel good images about our destructive and immoral policy on the Iraqi occupation.

Judging by the "positive" responses to the campaign stunt, I'd say the Bush spinners pulled it off.

You can fool some of the people all the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:10 AM

I already posted my answer, or the best one I could give, yesterday. I admit I am not a politically savvy person, so I imagine my answer was probably not a very good one in that regard. It's mostly just me trying to find the positives. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 29 Nov 03 - 07:27 AM

We are still awaiting the answer to the big question, What is there to admire about Bush?
Jed? Doug? Teribus? Kim? you have the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 02:49 PM

not a mention by anyone of how ridiculous this trip looked. think about it:

the so-called leader of the so-called only super power, the so-called most powerful country in the history of civilisation, some would say,

has to sneak into a country we supposedly now control in the middle of the night under cover of darkeness and the most heightened security in complete secrecy to help carve turkeys for a randomly selected portion of the troops on the ground in the most secure place in the country at the moment.

doesn't this make him look so strong and powerful, and such a leader!

A LEADER WOULD HAVE SAID I'M GOING TO IRAQ TO VISIT MY TROOPS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE, BRING IT ON!

this guy is a gutless wonder, an embarrassment. I bet the al qaeda guys and Saddam Hussein's followers (not the same people) are all laughing up thier sleeves at how scared they have got everybody. He couldn't even trust his own parents, a former President, with the information! Pathetic, useless, wasteful, disgusting, disrespectful show, strictly a photo op for political purposes, and sadly, because enough of the country is so gullible and there is no leadership in any other party to oppose him it may even work to get him re-appointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peace
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 01:08 PM

I need stronger medication. DougR and I agreed on something. Is civilization coming to an end? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: InOBU
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:59 PM

Brave? Well, brave if the US troops he met were not disarmed, as I think they were the ones who posed a real threat to him, after all, they are the ones sent to war on a lie and then had their benifits cut, their funerals ignored and the real number and nature of their injuries hidden... Brave? Well in an idiotic sort of way, yes!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:44 PM

I'd have thought Bush might even have felt a bit safer in the middle of his army in Baghdad than back home in America, where they shoot Presidents from time to time.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:32 PM

Kim, Teribus, Jed: a waste of time to argue with these folks. Let them rave on I say. It's probably good for their digestion.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:19 PM

And so and thus, sad all this fuss
So few did vote, most dissed by rote
Now photo opts, mock danger cop'ds
In costumed time, the electing dime...

Not bravery, but slavery
Did induce, this Turkey'd ruse
This fowl mirage, His business lodge
As C.E.O., in this side show

Distractions here, amidst the cheer
Elections there, so... extra care
And where else could, our George do good
War troubles he's, up to his knees

But really and, campaign's all planned
And all he's done, 's been by the gun
This war he's got, "his only spot"
He had to go... so... just say Know.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:06 PM

Teribus, so Bush provided leadership when it was needed? Leadership to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with 911? That's leadership? Look, the phoney lying bastard admitted on national TV that Iraq had nothing to do with 911! How the hell can you call him a leader? Was Captain Smith, master of the TITANIC a great leader? Do you see the analogy?
Bush is desperate to get elected (for the first time) and he will prostitute himself any way he has to to do it.
Sure he loves the troops who are alive to vote, but he spends no time being concerned about the dead or the veterans. It amazes me how many people this creep has been able to buffalo.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:44 AM

Here is a link to the UK's Independent article on the visit:

"The Turkey Has Landed"

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:25 AM

Pardon me if I save the plauditudes for bravery and heroism for the soldiers who didn't get to choose whether or not to "sacrifice" dinner at home with their family on Thanksgiving by being in Baghdad.

And while we are at it, there are an enormous number of journalists in Iraq despite the dangers to themselves, dismissed in this thread as usuful to take photos on a Presidential visit. Iraq has been a dangerous place to be a journalist, particularly since the American troops seem to keep killing them. They DID make a choice... and yet they are still there.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:18 AM

And another thing!

Blair not only had the guts to do a highly publicized trip to visit his troops BACK IN MAY FOR CHRIST SAKE, but also to acknowledge in his remarks addressed to those troops that their country had been deeply and bitterly divided about going to war against Iraq. And he did it without looking like a hyper militarized Lex Luthor.

Would that our fearful leader could show even one ounce of that sort of leadership. The Bush administration lives in a neo con Neverland on a river in Egypt...

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 11:05 AM

An article about the visit in today's New York Times shows the visit to have been a calculated part of the strategy to silence criticism for not being engaged with the troops, and not just from the Democratic presidential candidates (which is who the NYT in this article seems to suggest are Bush's only critics). Had the Bush boys not seen this as a political problem, the troop visit wouldn't have been such a grand political solution.

Here is the excerpt fromt the NY Times:

"The trip came at a time of rising criticism of the president for not attending the funerals of the returning war dead. It also came in the same week that Mr. Bush met with families of 26 soldiers killed in Iraq, and thus appeared to be a concerted effort by the White House to deal with a political problem.

And now, in a single day, Mr. Bush may have managed to supplant what has become the single most problematic image of him in this war: The picture of him swaggering across an aircraft carrier in front of banner reading "Mission Accomplished."

That image, which already has shown up in an advertisement by Mr. Kerry attacking the president, now seems likely to be overtaken by the picture of Mr. Bush, his eyes glistening with tears, addressing cheering troops on Thanksgiving Day. It was a moment fraught with imagery that was certainly a central subject of discussion at Thanksgiving tables."

The Bush campaign is locked in a battle for the hearts and minds of the American electorate, not the people of Iraq. Their preferred weapon of choice in this battle is the orchestrated film footage of the president looking military, despite his pathetic, cowardly military record during the Vietnam war.

On another "god, that just disgusts me note" I would like to add Wesley Clark's absolute cheap shot at Howard Dean while Dean was in Hawaii meeting the military plane carrying what is believed to be his brother's remains. Clark said something to the effect that while Dean was sitting safely at home with his medical deferment, Clark was sitting recovering from his Vietnam battle wounds.

I am just tremendously sickened by the troop trump card being used by these politicians. Wesley Clark sure as hell lost any possibility of my support when I heard those remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: sledge
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:51 AM

Somehow I don't See bush doing this because it made him feel nice, Would US taxpayers appreciate that use of how many Millions of dollars.

Secret visit my arse, he obviously had on hand his picked camera/news team who would edit and relaease only what they saw fit from this highly scripted event. Can't have any inadvertant screw ups making it to CNN.

As for attending funerals, that would show some guts, facing up to the ultimate price of his orders, but no don't want to loose any votes.

The troops were happy to see him?, yes, as some one said, how many troops are going to stand up in front of him and tell him he's an ass. Anyone who has been in the military will, if they were honest, will tell you that when you meet senior officers/politicians its a case of yes sir, no sir three bags full sir, NEXT! I was 11 years in the Navy and I never saw any other response to that kind of roadshow.

Brave no I don't think so, that has to have the highest level of protection provided for anyone, given that he is already one of the best protected men on the planet. And this following the visit to the UK where the security was almost paranoid in its intensity.

Get used to those film clips you'll see them a lot come election time.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:47 AM

There is no modern day president who didn't go to visit the troops in wartime though SINS, so Bush not going would raise many more questions than his going does, as is the case with him not honoring the dead and visiting the wounded. He ignores the ugly side of war, and only does the feel good, looks like victory sorts of things, which is disingenuous.

Thinking this was a great act, you are of course entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean I think your opinion, and those who share it, have a well informed opinion of this. I think you are, just as the Bush handlers hope you will, reacting emotionally to the film footage.

Bush would be in hot water if he didn't visit the troops, because the modern presidents back to FDR all went overseas on their war-time visits. So Bush had to make at least a token gesture of reaching out to the troops to boost morale. Same with visiting the wounded, and sending senior administration officials to visit the troops at the holidays. I know senior administration officials have visited Iraq, and I know they are no substitute for the commander in chief. But we should be seeing this sort of thing, along with visiting the wounded who are being completely ignored by this administration, all the time. And the commander in chief visiting the troops should never be something carried out in secrecy, unless they are going into the areas in the heart of the battle at great personal risk to themselves and those travelling with them. Baghdad airport doesn't qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM

Please. These excuses are so ridiculous.

He has plenty of time, he could go to them all -- he goes to fundraisers all over the country practically every day of the week, nor does he seem to work much, he admits he doesn't read, and if he took some time to go to funerals, he might hear things from people who aren't Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or Paul Wolfman. Like every hot-dogger he hates going to "downers, dude".

Some reasonable parsing out of funeral time is not exactly outside the wit of humankind, supposing that he had the decency to figure out that he wanted to go. He just spent 30 hours on a plane to cut turkeys. Why not spend 30 hours with some of the families of the dead? Because it is not Mr. Macho with his toy plane.

Why not go to every tenth one, or one a month, draw them out of a hat, or go to one from each division? It is not remotely plausible that families of soldiers would start bitching that he went to this guy's funeral, but not to ours -- this is the kind of thing that people say who have no idea how military families live and die. And if they did? (unbelievable as it is) Duh. "I cannot go to them all, but I go to as many as I can". End of controversy.

PR flacks and hot-doggers.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: JedMarum
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:29 AM

I dislike Bush's policies intensely. That said, his surprise trip to visit the troops in Iraq took guts and I admire his decision to do it. Photo op? The thousands of weary young American soldiers languishing in Iraq got a much needed shot in the arm by the only person who could have offered it. The few hundred who actually met him and the the rest, who saw that he cared enough to put himself in in a war zone for them, deserved the positive reinforcement it brought. I was even impressed by the short and simple speech he made.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:28 AM

KimC--pardon my cynicism but a secret visit that has the film footage rolling on CNN back in the States while everyone is sitting down in front of the tv after Thanksgiving dinner, and before the president's flight to return to the States leaves the ground?

What the hell is so bloody secret about an international news coup by the White House? You know what would have made this appropriate? Not having Bush's entire speech to the troops running on cable news minutes after it was given, but having a still photographer from the press pool along to take some historic photographs. That would have been in excellent taste, it would have been truly a secret AND surprise visit to the troops, and it wouldn't have triggered the cynical backlash we are already seeing in discussions about it among people like us back here in the US. Just taking a still photographer for having a secret visit recorded for historic purposes would have been a noble act. This several hour long campaign stop was not.

Teribus and others are conveniently overlooking the fact that US presidents, during times of war, routinely honor those who are currently making the sacrifices, not just honor them generically on Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. As many have pointed out, there could be a special ceremonial memorial. There could be visits to the troops in the field, not just in a tent at Baghdad airport. There could be visits to the troops stationed in other places in the Middle East like Afghanistan. There could easily be visits by Bush, by his senior administration officials, by his family, to the wounded.

Instead, we get silence and stonewalling. This coward won't acknowledge the painful realities of war for one second, for fear his poll numbers might drop. That means he doesn't have the courage of his convictions when sending our troops into harm's way. He just pays lip service to the troops, while cutting them and their families off at the knees, and cynically manipulating peoples' emotions about the troops at every photo opportunity, for his own pathetic political advantage.

I can't say it enough times, Bush is a gutless coward, and watching that cynical reelection stunt yesterday sickened me.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:15 AM

This coward doesn't have the courage of his convictions to honor the dead and wounded he sent into this war, because it would make his numbers fall.

Let's face it folks, it isn't a very long helicopter ride from the White House to Walter Reed hospital. Even if he sent his wife to do the job, it would be better than what we've seen so far, which is too much like...loving the smell of napalm in the morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:14 AM

How could it have been a surprise if it hadn't been kept secret?

If you have never done something secret for someone, I recommend it highly. One year Mister and I and a friend chipped in and had a seamstress make a little set of reenacting clothes for another friend's little girl. I had it shipped anonymously. It was all a big secret, and great fun. Of course I had to admit to it eventually, mostly because I am a lousy liar!

I also take great delight in leaving treats on people's desks in my office - anonymously.

I don't do this to win favors. I do it because I want to. It makes them happy, it makes me happy. Try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Frankham
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM

Hi Teribus,

"Well said Kim C

In the eyes of many on this forum - Even when he does something right, he can do no right."

Isn't that what the Radical Right has been saying about Hillary
and Bill for years? The difference is the Radical Right
gave the American people a tremendous tax bill to prove it.

Talk about not giving credit when it's due, the Radical (Pseudo-Religious) Right are past masters at this.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:12 AM

I know a whitewash when I see one and KimC's was classic. All excuses for another Bush stunt and his compassion-less conservative stance. Naively asking the list to "Be sweet" and "Let it go at that" are just too much to ask when Dubya is CLEARLY getting his publicity posters ready now for next November's election.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:09 AM

Peter T,

You missed entirely, the very valid point that Kim C made regarding the funerals - If he goes to one, which one? He can't go to them all, that is physically just not possible, so it is better that he goes to none.

Veterans Day is the time for him, as President of the United States of America and Commander-in-Chief of America's Armed Forces, to pay his respects to the dead.

kendall,

In answer to your question.

He provided leadership when it was required, even although he knew that would mean making some extremely tough and unpopular decisions - he did not shirk from his responsibilities.

You throw labels, and mass generalisations about like confetti. The one I'd apply to you would be that you are one of the "Peace at anyone elses expense" brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:07 AM

Shameless pre-election photo-op. If there had been any real risk, his régime wouldn't have let him go. They still need him as front-man, Cheney would be too obvious.

Clearly he can't go to all the funerals. But maybe he should promise to go to that of the thousandth US fatality, which sadly looks like it could well be before the election. That should give him a powerful incentive to start doing something serious to make sure that funeral never happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:04 AM

Well, Peter, people are accusing him of taking advantage of going to Baghdad in the middle of the night. Who's to say they wouldn't do the same with funerals?

All right Kendall, I'll see if I can answer your question. I didn't vote for Bush. He wasn't my choice for President. But he's what we got, and I believe we have to make the best of the situation. It isn't so much that I like or dislike George Bush as much as it is that I respect the office of the President. It isn't an easy job to be President, and I truly believe that the people who are most qualified and would do the best job, are WAY too smart to want the job in the first place! Anyhow I am always willing to give someone a chance, and I would have given Al Gore a chance too, if he were in the office. I don't know if that makes any sense or not, but that's the best answer I can give.

There are a couple of things I like about Bush. I liked that at the Olympics, he sat in the stands with the US athletes, and graciously took Sasha Cohen's cell phone to talk to her mother when she handed it to him. I like that he carries his own dog. He seems to inspire confidence in the people who admire him. He has at least enough smarts to surround himself with smart people. I have always believed that a good leader is aware of his/her weaknesses, and will choose a cabinet of people who can make up for those shortcomings.

There were things I liked about Clinton, too. He always seemed like the sort of person I could have over to the house for beer and pizza. I did vote for him the first time, because I believed he had a lot of potential. I still think he could have been a great President. But I also think a lot of men who could have been great Presidents were held back by the people around them, and by other circumstances beyond their control.

As for Hillary going to Afghanistan...... she's a Senator. There isn't anything unusual about Senators travelling to foreign countries. It simply isn't big news. Now, I think her heart is probably in the right place. And while I have never liked her much, I am willing to give her a chance too.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,bull crap
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:52 AM

He should send his trashy slut daughters and his druggie niece...

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:48 AM

Well, when I posted this, the news tickertape on CNN was running with a message like "Bush makes unpublicized trip to Baghdad..."

I thought to myself--doesn't unpublicized mean it doesn't make the news?

I think one bcan be either a Bush supporter, as easily as a Bush opponent, to see this in a pretty cynical light. Remember, Bush is a politician first--and this was a cynical, manipulative act of a politician, not a selfless noble act of a military hero.

Other presidents have gone to into war zones to boost troop morale, for the same reasons that Bush did yesterday. But none--not one--has snuck in and out the back door like Bush did. This on the heels of his over the top security for the England visit makes him look like a cowardly wimp. As many in the British press pointed out during the London visit, if the Windsors and Churchill could stick it out during the Blitz, what the fuck is up with the pussy Bush? This stunt, on top of the ridiculous amount of security surrounding the London visit, not to mention Hilary Clinton travelling in Afghanistan and Iraq sans 700+ entourage, makes Bush look pretty damn cowardly and foolish. More of an embarrassment to us all, than a hero. No matter how pretty he looked smiling into the camera with the turkey platter in his Army jacket.

I'd much rather have seen him do a surprise, rather than a secret visit to the troops, and stay a little longer than it took to get the film footage for the campaign commericals. He easily could have taken the White House press corps--whiners though the lot of them are for being scooped. And yes, I believe the cameras there filming the photo op are paid for by the same entity that paid for filming of the photo op on the aircraft carrier and the "Mission Accomplished" sign, Bush boosters contributing to the campaign coffers. Why is it that Bush couldn't make any time for visiting any of the 10s of thousands of troops anywhere else in Iraq or the Middle East over the long weekend? Security reasons my ass. That is the mother's skirt this coward always hides behind.

I'm in the camp with those who see this as film footage for campaign commercials, even though I know the troops who got to see him appreciated him making the trip. But to try and sell this to the American public as an act of bravery, or a sacrifice, as they were doing yesterday, saying Bush sacrificed having dinner with his family in Texas for the rough and tumble world of Baghdad (as if the president would endure any hardship or discomfort whatsoever while travelling in a luxury jet with military escorts) just made it look all the more like a cynical manipulation of his reelection campaign.

I know such things are seen as morale boosters for the troops, but c'mon--how many of the troops actually got the chance to see him? How about the troops who really need some morale boosting at this point, like the 101st? What, the schedule for his weekend at the ranch couldn't be changed? Gimmee a break. And I'm with Peter about his failure to honor any of the fallen. Why not a special memorial service for them over the weekend, giving thanks and showing any gratitude whatsoever for their and their families' sacrifices for the country? But no, the gallant one can't be bothered to remember the fallen--that might make his poll numbers drop. Like I said, this guy is a coward without the courage of his convictions to stand behind the troops killed. He could just as easily have visited Walter Reed hospital to visit the wounded too, but does he? No. If he really supported the troops he could fund a few paltry billion to the health and welfare of the military grunt and their families, but does he? No, he slashes the budget for the health and welfare of troops at the same time he approves skyrocketing programs for military programs that will never work, so his fat cat cronies will make big campaign donations.

And no, I'm not a Democrat. I'm an independent voter, thank you very much. But I am damn sick and tired of this administration cynically playing the troop card to play on peoples' emotions.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Sleepless Dad
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:47 AM

My guess is that 95% of all politicians - Republican, Democrat, Green Party, or Whigs would have done the same thing that President Shrub did. I just choose to admire the 5% that would have done it differently.

Shrub after all is trying to win his first big national election next year - all on his own. Without the help of his brother or his fathers appointees. And these photo ops can help. Shame on us if we don't see through them.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:37 AM

Well, folks, at least he didn't show up in a phony flight suit. But ya' gotta give his PR folks (who incidently are paid from taxpayers money) credit.

But, as others have pointed out, ya' gotta give Hillary Clinton perhaps more credit since she not only announced her plans to visit Afganistan but also is in an even less secure area, with the Taliban and Warlords in control on much of the country...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:17 AM

Hey, at least his handlers didn't dress him up THIS time in a phony uniform he wasn't remotely entitled to wear. Perhaps that's progress- of a sort?

Allusions to "Bush bigots" and "Bush Haters" is hysterically funny coming from people who irrationally dance about and foam at the mouth every time the word "Clinton" (Hillary OR Bill) is mentioned, and have done for more than a decade.

God Help America.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 09:14 AM

This the same courageous and heroic guy who needed a 300 man police cordon and a 5 mile air exclusion zone to have lunch in an English country pub.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Hrothgar
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 08:48 AM

Very, very smart politically. All the people who complain about it are the ones who despise and detest him anyway, and he might win over some waverers.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 08:38 AM

Going to funerals looks bad; handing turkey around looks good. His handlers have been agonizing for weeks about how to handle the funerals, there is nothing positive in it at all -- this has been endlessly discussed in various newspapers. Everything George W. Bush does is for polls, photo-ops, television, re-election. If you think that George Bush is not going to funerals because he thinks that people would accuse him of taking advantage, or that families would complain about having the President of the United States at their child's funeral, I have this bridge you might want to consider investing in (an Enron product).

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 08:32 AM

I'm a Democrat and as I said, I'm not fond of Bush OR the Iraqi mess. But I now have a modicum of respect for the man for placing himself, at least a little bit, in harm's way.

There are many ways to die on a battlefield. Forget about the plane being shot down -- should the other side have found out and been able to get it together in time a mortar attack or similar thing could have made Cheney president. Even enough fanatics for a suicide attack....

Hillary Clinton, too, has earned respect for going into danger.

But let's face it: neither the President nor the Senator is likely to be visiting where the bullets are actively flying around. The military would be criminally culpable to let them be exposed to that.

As for the press, well, I apologize, but over the years I've lost a lot of respect for the press. Too much non-news news, too many photo ops, too little respect for human dignity, too little ability to know when to keep its mouth shut, too little ability to know what is news and what isn't.

Still doesn't mean that I'd vote for either one of them for President.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 08:07 AM

You conservatives keep accusing we liberals of hating Bush. Have you ever wondered WHY? And don't give us that crap about hating all republicans, or that he stole the election.
I ask again, what do you admire about this phoney liar that everyone should admire? We never did get an answer to this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: kendall
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 07:46 AM

Clearly it was just another re election photo op. He praises the military people who vote and at the same time he is gutting veterans benefits at home.
We FIND fault with what he does? So what? you inply that the fault is there to be found! If we were creating fault, that wiould be someting to bitch about. Actually, we don't have to FIND fault, it's not hard to do in his case.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 06:25 AM

In Clint Keller's post above (28 Nov 03 - 03:51 AM)

"He may have reason not to go to any funerals, but he could attend a memorial service of some kind."

He does doesn't he - Veterans Day? Our Queen does the same thing on Rememberance Day, a ceremony that pays respect to, and honours the sacrifice made by all those who died in conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 05:58 AM

Somebody out in Bagdad must have asked for an extra turkey !

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 03:51 AM

Sleepless summed it up exactly.

"He did the right thing by going. It's a shame that he felt like he needed to milk it for the publicity."

He brought cameras and reporters with him; he didn't depend on the cameras that are "always there." And I would not be afraid to go along with him, but it would take courage to go along with the troops who are out patrolling; I'd have to have a good reason.

He may have reason not to go to any funerals, but he could attend a memorial service of some kind.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 02:19 AM

Well said Kim C

In the eyes of many on this forum - Even when he does something right, he can do no right.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 01:46 AM

There were cameras there, because there are ALWAYS cameras there. It's a war zone. There's been cameras there since Day 1.

Peter, about the funerals..... as far as I know, it's still physically impossible for one person to be in more than one place at a time. I agree it would be a nice gesture, but since the President can't possibly attend ALL the funerals, it's probably better to attend none at all; because if he went to some, and not others, people would undoubtedly complain that he was choosing favorites and doing it for a photo op.

I also imagine, there are many families who would not want their loved one's funeral spoiled by the media attention the President's attendance would attract.

Be sweet, y'all. Even my die-hard Democrat mother and brother agreed that this was a great gesture on Bush's part. The troops were certainly appreciative. Let it go at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: DougR
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 01:12 AM

Geeze. What a pathetic cynical bunch you bitchers are. If there had been no cameras, you would have bitched because he did it without notifying the press.

Jed, you're right of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:50 AM

That should be "turnip"--

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:49 AM

It was a stunt of the "See what I can do?" variety, which was pretty much what the invasion of Iraq was, when you get right down to it. Great publicity, if you need publicity--What I'd like to see is a little leadership, but you can't get milk out of a tunip--

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:39 AM

Jed, you're correct in that those who don't like Bush will find cause to criticize this trip. But you're incorrect about the outcome--there's PLENTY to bitch about here, so don't dismiss the complaints that Bush spent a few hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly to Iraq for a photo-opportunity with the troops to boost his ratings. Rest assured that it's a republican shell game--his maneuver will take eyes away from some political hijacking taking place in the House or Senate here at home.