BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked

Subject: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 02:40 PM

Man, the Bush administration must really be desperate about the way things are going in Iraq, if Bush has to make a secret visit to his own troops!

From Reuters:

Bush Makes Secret Thanksgiving Visit to Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peace
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 03:44 PM

Gutsy move on his part. I don't like him, but he has cojones.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: curmudgeon
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 04:12 PM

Or was it a Photoshopped photo op?

Bat Goddess (not Curmudgeon but too lazy to sign in on my own cookie)

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 04:15 PM

Regardless of politics, he took a personal risk, and showed his troops he cares; they appreciated it very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 04:18 PM

When he starts going to funerals, I will be impressed. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: DougR
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 04:18 PM

Yes, I think the troops appreciated it very much. As to it being a secret trip ...it had to be!

It was a gutsy appropriate move on his part I think.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,cookiless Blackcatter
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 04:53 PM

Gutsy?

No one knew he was coming. He flys in in the most advanced large-sized airplane in the world with millions of dollars of special protective aspects - completely surrounded by military jets and helicopters.

He sees the light of day just long enough to duck into an armored carrier and taken directly to the center of a US military base.

Where exactly is the guts? That's just pitiful. As for the favorable response - Bush talking to active duty military is like the Pope talking to his cardinals.

Please tell me you don't seriously think he was in any danger. My god. He was in more danger if he snacked on pretzels on the flight.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 06:22 PM

No, Blackcatter, he was in danger. Word gets out, mortar rounds or rockets land, Cheney becomes President. As for your implication that all of the active duty military supports Bush ("Bush talking to active duty military is like the Pope talking to his cardinals") is no more accurate than that during Vietnam all the soldiers were kill-crazy baby-killers.

I disagree with the invasion of Iraq and I don't like Bush and Co. But the danger was there for him, and it was greater than it usually is for a sitting President or any other head of government.

EVERYONE in a combat zone is in danger, military or civilian, President or Private.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 06:40 PM

Perhaps someone could consider that Hillary Clinton is in Afghanistan; her itinerary was announced ahead of time; she is proceeding to Iraq; she did not take a cadre of photographers and press people with her.

Guts? No contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 06:40 PM

American or Iraqui.

Or some poor innocent fuc$er just caught in the crossfire.

Dumbya doesn't give a rat's ass about "the troops" - only about re-election.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Mickey191
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 07:15 PM

My bet is if it had been Nov. 10, 2004, He would have stayed home. We'll see - cause they'll still be there I'm sorry to say.   

Bless Hilliary, She's worked her tush for the Vets.
Guest pdc--right again.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Kim C
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 11:34 PM

I thought it was a pretty cool thing to do. I also knew that people who don't already like Bush would somehow find fault with this.

How many of you would have been willing to go on this trip?

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: JedMarum
Date: 27 Nov 03 - 11:46 PM

I'd like to go ... still looking for a way.

The Bush bigots will of course find a way to spew their venom about this trip. They hate the air he breathes, so no surprise ... but there's nothing to bitch about here. Bush just did a good thing, and he did quietly and gracefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Sleepless Dad
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:02 AM

Jed - If he had done it quietly there wouldn't have been any cameras there. There's nothing wrong with what he did but I would have respected him more if he had skiped the photo ops. It was a nice thing to do but he turned it into a campain stop.

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

You're joking, of course, Dad??

The press is already bitching about this being left out:

"Philip Taubman, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said that 'in this day and age there should have been a way to take more reporters. People are perfectly capable of maintaining a confidence for security reasons. It's a bad precedent.'"

ap wire

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Sleepless Dad
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:28 AM

No I'm not joking. There were many filmed reports. If he had only been there for the troops then why were there cameras there ? And why was it on American news broadcasts before the day was over ? If it had been a totally selfless act the TV cameras wouldn't have been there. He did the right thing by going. It's a shame that he felt like he needed to milk it for the publicity. My opinion of course. My guess is that you'll disagee. You are welcome to your own opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked
From: Blackcatter
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:35 AM

Bush does nothing gracefully. That's the last word anyone should use to describe him. Not that he's the only politician like that.

And Bush probably did this to try to steal Hillary Clinton's moment. Hillary's the one with the set of balls (of course we all knew that ;-)).

As for danger - come off it - one plane a commercial cargo plane has been hit in the entire "post war" period. It landed safely after sustaning damage to a wing, but the fire power was so slight that it was pretty much the best that could have been done. Air Force 1 was in more danger flying through the north-east US air corridor.

As for the troops he talked to - do you seriously think there's any significant number who disagree with his actions? And would they boo him or something in the midst of all their commrades and officers? Come on.

And the press always wants more access. What's new about that?

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.

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: M.Ted
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 12:50 AM

That should be "turnip"--

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: JedMarum
Date: 28 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM

I rest my case.

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: 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: 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.