 sj |
||
|
||
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. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 11:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: kendall Date: 29 Nov 03 - 08:09 PM Well said, Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 29 Nov 03 - 09:12 PM I just got back -- 1. Veteran's Day is generic. Honoring Veteran's Day is not the same as honoring the deaths of men he, as their commander in chief, sent into battle. He is directly accountable for that. 2. Leaderhip is nothing out of context. Josef Stalin had great leadership ability, intelligence and courage. He did not use these qualities to make the world a better place. 3. I dislike Bush, but I also believe that most any of the presidents that I can remember (starting with FDR) would have been unable to keep from using this trip as a publicity device. That doesn't make it less contemptible. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Bobert Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:14 PM Well, there is another aspect of "The Trip" that could come back to haunt Bush and that is if he falls back into his predictable behavior of ignoring the troops, other than in his rhetoric... I mean, can you imagine an ad, run by a Dean/Clark ticket with images of veterans in VA hospitals and vets in the middle of war and then *the voice* comes on and says "George Bush" as the images of Bush standing on the carrier deck with the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him, then to Bush eating dinner in Bahgdad and then a final shot of a Bush as a Texas Air National Guardsman with "A.W.O.L" accross his chest and then *the voice* says "Security is not a part time job" as the image of A.W.O.L. image fades and a picture of Dean and Clark (in uniform) take its place... Whaddayathink, Big Mick.... (I'm available....) Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Kim C Date: 29 Nov 03 - 10:44 PM Okay then. If the President hadn't done anything to recognize the troops at Thanksgiving, what would the public reaction be to that? Consider this, also... while he may not be going to the funerals as often as we think proper, how do we know he isn't writing letters and making phone calls? Those things done in the privacy of the Oval Office may not necessarily get in the news. I want to make it clear that I am not necessarily a Bush supporter on the whole. I do, however, admit that I like to debate. Not argue - arguing is mean and nasty and pointless. I just like having all sides of a story, is all, and I appreciate hearing what others have to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 30 Nov 03 - 03:28 AM Like I said before, Kim: '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."' and: '3. I dislike Bush, but I also believe that most any of the presidents that I can remember (starting with FDR) would have been unable to keep from using this trip as a publicity device. That doesn't make it less contemptible.' clint (Maybe Jimmy Carter could have handled it) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:33 AM The man believes that what he has gotten us into is right. It follows that he should show the troops his personal gratitude. However, my personal disdane for the only president I have ever detested gets in the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Greg F. Date: 30 Nov 03 - 09:28 AM Kendall- you MUST have detested Tricky Dick just a little bit, no? Although I agree that Dumbya AND HIS JUNTA are the must detestable in quite a while. Since "The Great Somnolator" anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 03 - 10:24 AM The notion that the left despised Nixon is largely a myth, perpetuated by right wing nuts who despise the Clintons. The left despised the war, but I wouldn't say the left despised Nixon more than they did Johnson regarding the war. Don't forget, Johnson was so despised because of the war, that he couldn't even seek another term--and he was a very popular president after he was sworn in to replace Kennedy. So popular that he was able to push through the civil rights legislation that had been the biggest item on Kennedy's domestic agenda, and certainly the most controversial. For some reason, the mean and ugly neo con Republicans and their choir believe that the politics is personal--it isn't. Except with them, of course, because they make it so. They act as if having to share the country with anyone who disagrees with them is the equivalent of living with the enemy. That is the main reason why the Bush regime and it's supporters are so sicko, paranoid, and delusional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Peter T. Date: 30 Nov 03 - 10:47 AM I am not sure a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to keep up public support for his policies. I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support. What keeps this system from breaking down is the fundamental public trust, which does not need to be measured in terms of public support -- I may not support my government's action, but I need to trust that they are not engaged in active evil, that they take the public trust seriously. What makes the current situation so toxic is that the so-called needs of security, secret intelligence, and anti-terrorism depend (in democracies) on fundamental trust in the honesty of our leaders, if they claim to be making decisions based on intelligence that cannot be made public. We have overwhelming evidence that we have been lied to and manipulated by ideologues who are untrustworthy. This is why the remark -- "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" -- is, I think, wrong. Abraham Lincoln went to Gettysburg and drew attention to the dead, so as to ensure the nation that while he might have difficulties with public support, he was the keeper of the public trust. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Kim C Date: 30 Nov 03 - 11:37 AM "I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support." Very good! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: tar_heel Date: 30 Nov 03 - 11:52 AM IT WAS AWWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSOOOMMMEEEEE!!!!nuff said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 03 - 12:00 PM "I think a President or a Prime Minister has a duty to try and convince the public that his policies are those that are in the best interests of the body politic as a whole, even if they do not always, and cannot always, be measured in terms of overt public support." I agree that a president or prime minister, as leaders, cannot measure success or failure of their policies by overt or presumed public support. This administration doesn't function that way though. It seems possible it is even more poll driven than it's predecessors in the Clinton White House. But I don't believe they should be acting in the interests of the body politic though. Leadership requires foresight, and the ability to envision a future, and then doing the hard work of body politicking to get the nation moving towards that vision of the future. First and foremost, it is a president or prime minister's mission to do what is in the best interest of the nation and of the nation's relationships to the other nations of the world. To say the current administration hasn't done this is a gross understatement. It is acting not in the best interest of the nation, but of the nation's conservative elite. It is not acting in the best interest of the nation's relationship to other nations of the world, but bullying, intimidating, and manipulating them. This administration has done more damage to the social fabric of the nation, and to it's international relationships in the two years since 9/11 than any other US administration that I can think of, barring none. If someone can cite historic precedents of other administrations doing this much permanent damage, particularly in terms of it serving exclusively it's own party ideologues and campaign contributors at the expense of the rest of the nation, I don't know of any other era in American history when that occurred at a national level. Local and regional, especially with the party boss system. But the party boss system was changed in 1972 to the current primary system, so there is no precedent there either. This is a backward looking administration, and one working solely for what it perceives as it's own self-interest. If this president were serving the entire nation, we wouldn't see this ideological amping up of the culture wars, in an attempt to destroy the roughly 50% of the nation which embraces secular rather than fundamentalist Christian anti-government values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 03 - 12:34 PM It wasn't awesome, it was a predictably safe, sanitized photo op. The current obsession on the cable news channels with how the plane landed, and how Dubya snuck out the back door of the ranch, and how "historic" the handful of journalists who were taken on board (and in) by the Bushites on Air Force One felt the "mission" was, isn't even being watched by anyone but the Bush loyalists--remember, Washington is empty this weekend, so it is always an excruciatingly slow and dull news cycle for the DC pundits and DC news junkies. The rest of the nation has been ignoring the news, watching football, gorging themselves, and shopping all weekend. Everyone knows Bush went to visit the troops, but it really didn't register much on the political radar. It was expected by all the pundits that Bush would do something this weekend to show appreciation for the troops because a) that's his job as commander in chief, and if he had done nothing but drive the truck around the ranch, there would have been a firestorm of criticism from every political direction, and b) because that was the Bush White House plan of the week: end the nagging criticism that this commander in chief is disengaged from the troops and ignoring the hard side of his war. That is why he had his aides round up the families of some of the war dead, and bring them to the White House this week. Not out of sincerety, in my opinion, but to try and regain the moral high ground during the otherwise ignored Thanksgiving news cycle. And no visits to the wounded yet, either don't forget. They remain totally ignored. And then there are these tokens of the Bush administration's appreciation and esteem for their beloved boys (and a few token girls) in uniform: With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to cut $75 a month from the "imminent danger" pay added to soldiers' paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were termed "wasteful and unnecessary" by the White House, Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes. This year's White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from VA hospitals—despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per patient than nine years ago. The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all Priority 8 veterans—those with "non-service-related illnesses"—who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year. Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured are treated. In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries—military-run stores that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted troops and their families to get by—along with the possiblility of closing 19 more. At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers' children at 14 military installations. The White House is seeking to block a federal judge's award of damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country's reconstruction. The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add $1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush's request of $87 billion for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to "the cost of the extraordinary security" during Bush's recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly "would cover a vest for every soldier" in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Peace Date: 30 Nov 03 - 06:31 PM Presidents (and other types of leaders) have a responsibility to men and women they send 'into harm's way'. Providing them with the best equipment available is one of those responsibilities. Accusing Bush of taking advantage of a photo opportunity is like--well, when a dog pees on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism; it's simply being a dog. I am a foreign national whose government opted to stay out of round two. Therefore, I won't comment further. Other than to say, Yankee, go home! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:31 PM Nice bit of research there, Guest 12:34! Thanks for the info, and All the best in getting more... Excellent Work! ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:37 PM As a matter of fact, I voted for Nixon...twice. When it became clear that he was a criminal, I felt betrayed. Up until then I thought he was an outstanding president. I cast my first vote for Eisenhower,I supported Goldwater, I voted for Bush 1 when he ran against Raygun in the primary. Right after that, I became a democrat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 30 Nov 03 - 07:45 PM Thanks Guest 12:34. We mudcatters all vote for more defense spending! Right? No, wait. . . We want them to spend more on vests, but not guns. . . No, that's not it. . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Bobert Date: 30 Nov 03 - 08:51 PM Well, I think we can all agree that Bush did what his PR handlers told him he had to do: the *minimum*.... Like I said earlier, if Bush continues to ignore the vets then he's gonna have a hard time winning next Novemeber. With Clark on the ticket, Bush will be made to look like the creep that he is.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Teribus Date: 01 Dec 03 - 04:21 AM GUEST 28 Nov 03 - 10:28 AM "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." Speaking for myself I have conveniently overlooking nothing. What I did do was respond on this specific instance. Another point with regard to what you have written above, you are the only person who has suggested "a special ceremonial memorial". That I think would be a very good idea. Peter T. 28 Nov 03 - 10:35 AM "It is not remotely plausible that families of soldiers would start bitching that he went to this guy's funeral, but not to ours " Oh No? - but taking that on face value I am pretty certain that if they didn't draw attention to it, there would be plenty posting on this forum who would make exactly those complaints. kendall - 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!" The link between 911 and action taken against Iraq was indirect - but the reasoning behind that decision was sound. Very shortly after the attacks of 911 - Colin Powell was interviewed and came out with a very clear statement that Iraq had absolutely no involvement in those attacks. So the "phoney lying bastard" was admitting to what exactly? - Where and when did anyone from the current administration ever state anything different to what Colin Powell said in the interview I refer to above. Examples please, chapter and verse, if you can't come up with any, for the sake of accuracy please refrain from myth building. kendall 29 Nov 03 - 07:27 AM We are still awaiting the answer to the big question, What is there to admire about Bush? I believe you already have my answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Peter T. Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:52 AM Couldn't be easier. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2003: With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Amos Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:02 AM Looks pretty Chapter and Verse to me! :>) Gee....maybe there is something phony and lying about the bastard after all.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Teribus Date: 01 Dec 03 - 09:04 AM Not as easy as you think Peter. Where in your example does the President say that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of the 11th September, 2001. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Peter T. Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:08 AM Mistah Bones, Do da name Al-Qaeda ring any bells wid you? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Amos Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM Teribus: I'd try tofind other grounds were I you. The explicit literal statement in words of one syllable you want to argue abhout is not tyhe point. Much more tot he point is the inten tional inter-linking and association of 9-11, Al Qeda, Saddam HUssein, and mass destruction. With strong associations supported by weasel words. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: TIA Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM Y este congreso y la gente americana deben reconocer otra amenaza. La evidencia de fuentes de la inteligencia, las comunicaciones secretas y las declaraciones de la gente ahora en custodia revelan que Saddam Hussein ayuda y protege a terroristas, incluyendo miembros del al Qaida. Secretamente, y sin las huellas digitales, él podría proporcionar una de sus armas ocultadas a los terroristas, o ayúdeles a desarrollar sus el propios. Antes de septiembre el 11mo, muchos en el mundo creyó que Saddam Hussein podría ser contenido. Pero los agentes químicos, los virus mortales y las redes vagas del terrorista no se contienen fácilmente. Et ce congrès et les américains doivent identifier une autre menace. L'évidence des sources d'intelligence, les communications secrètes et les rapports des personnes maintenant dans la garde indiquent que Saddam Hussein aide et protège des terroristes, y compris des membres d'Al Qaida. Secrètement, et sans empreintes digitales, il pourrait fournir une de ses armes cachées aux terroristes, ou aidez-les à développer leurs propres. Avant septembre le 11ème, beaucoup dans le monde a cru que Saddam Hussein pourrait être contenu. Mais des agents chimiques, les virus mortels et les réseaux ombragés de terroriste ne sont pas facilement contenus. Und dieser Kongreß und die amerikanischen Leute müssen eine andere Drohung erkennen. Beweis von den Intelligenzquellen, geheime Kommunikationen und Aussagen durch Leute jetzt im Schutz decken, daß Saddam Hussein Terroristen hilft und schützt, einschließlich Mitglieder des Als Qaida auf. Geheim und ohne Fingerabdrücke, könnte er eine seiner versteckten Waffen zu den Terroristen zur Verfügung stellen, oder helfen Sie ihnen, ihre Selbst zu entwickeln. Vor September glaubte das 11., viele in der Welt, daß Saddam Hussein enthalten werden könnte. Aber chemische Mittel, lebensgefährliche Viren und schattenhafte Terroristnetze werden nicht leicht enthalten. E este congress e os povos americanos devem reconhecer uma outra ameaça. A evidência das fontes da inteligência, as comunicações secretas e as indicações por povos agora na custódia revelam que Saddam Hussein ajuda e protege a terroristas, including membros do al Qaida. Secreta, e sem impressões digitais, poderia fornecer uma de suas armas escondidas aos terroristas, ou ajude-lhes desenvolver seus próprios. Antes de setembro o 11os, muitos no mundo acreditaram que Saddam Hussein poderia ser contido. Mas os agentes químicos, os vírus letais e as redes shadowy do terrorista não são contidos fàcilmente. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: TIA Date: 01 Dec 03 - 10:19 AM Since the original English was apparently too obtuse, I have provided the quote in several other tongues (courtesy of Babelfish). Hope this helps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 01 Dec 03 - 11:31 AM Bush has been careful to only suggest through innuendo that Saddam was linked to 9/11, but he has suggested regularly enough. If Teribus needs a specific cite for each speech in which he did it, that can be found. More to the point, the vice president, the national security advisor, and the secretary of defense, as well as a number of Rumseld's underlings like Wolfowitz and Armitage have made public policy speeches suggesting more strongly than Bush has that Saddam was linked to 9/11. I mean really Teribus, do you really think the 60% of the American electorate that believes Saddam was linked to 9/11 came up with the idea on their own? Of course they didn't. The link has been made routinely through innuendo and linking of one bad guy (bin Laden) to the other bad guy (Saddam) until the polls showed that the American electorate bought the Big Lie, and gave it as one of two reasons to support Bush's war against Iraq. The other reason was the other Big Lie: WMD. One could also find cites for the administration's policy speeches linking Saddam, and you certainly could hear it regularly on the Faux News channel as the drumbeat for war heated up throughout 2002 and early 2003 before the war started. It is part and parcel of the misinformation campaign undertaken by the administration's highest officials, to sell the American people on the war. And Teribus, anyone who says differently is damn liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:10 PM Bush attacked Iraq. What could be plainer than that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Bobert Date: 01 Dec 03 - 08:30 PM All ya gotta do is read the danged polls. Lots of Amercians still believe this crap. Of the *Big Three* lies (WMD's, Al Qaeda links and Nuclear threat) most Americans still believe in at least one. And way too many believe all three? Yeah the lies get printed on page one and the retractions on page 23, right under the local hog prices. Like where did all of these folks comeup with these ideas, T-Bird????... Did they have some kind of cosmic collective dream, 'er what. Of course they didn't, you knothead. They were carefully conditioned to think this way. By whom? Take a guess.... Playing symantics here is nothing more than an academic exercise. Bottom line, there is no doubt that Bush and Co' wanted people to believe the Big Three. And just keep in mind that Hitler observed that people will more easily accept big lies than smaller ones... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Teribus Date: 02 Dec 03 - 02:53 AM OK folks for yet the umpteenth time just exactly what DID the man say. Not an exercise in semantics, just a simple exercise in comprehension: George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 28th January, 2003: Point 1. "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." Based purely on statements made by Saddam Hussein, and on his own track record, the above assessment is not outwith the bounds of probability. Point 2. "And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." The threat mentioned in the first sentence is specified in the third. It is a question that has been asked before, but never fully answered. Taking those two sentences together, by what reasoning can that threat be totally discounted? The second sentence refers to fairly well known links between the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad and terrorist groups operating outwith Iraq's borders, primarily those groups in conflict with the Israelis. The reference to Al-Qaeda, is made because such an "alliance" based on the fundamental differences between Ba'athist Iraq and bin Laden's organisation appears unlikely. But Ba'athist Iraq did allow a senior member of Al-Qaeda entry to their country, they did allow that senior member of Al-Qaeda to remain in Iraq for hospital treatment and undoubtedly Iraqi intelligence did talk to him. What should have happened was that that man should have been arrested and held in Iraq, he wasn't. Now that trail of events, taken in isolation, may not be all that significant, but combined with the fact that Saddam Hussein was the only political leader of any country to publicly applaud and congratulate the attacks of September 11th, 2001 meant that such links irrespective of how frail could not be completely ignored. Point 3. "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained." First sentence, pure statement of fact borne out by years of inaction and lack of resolve by the United Nations. Second sentence underlines what has been evaluated as a potential threat subsequent to September 11th, 2001. Elsewhere in the body of the address referred to, specific mention is made of the desireability of implementation and verification of UN resolutions regarding Iraq, in order to eliminate Iraq as a potential supplier of the weapons described above to international terrorist organisation. Elsewhere in the address referred to, specific mention is made of the UN assessment of the weapons believed to be held illegaly by the Iraqi regime. At no time at all has George W Bush ever said Iraq was in any way, shape or form responsible for the attacks of 11th September 2001. The fact does remain that a senior member of his administration clearly stated that position very shortly after those attacks took place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:04 AM The point you consistently overlook Teribus, in each and every example you cite, is that your interpretation of what Bush said is no better than the analysis we get through the neo-conservative media and pundits. We've heard it all before and remain unconvinced of it's veracity. Now, the reason we remain unconvinced of it's veracity, or the veracity of the intelligence claims made by the senior Bush administration officials, is because those very claims have been challenged by our own intelligence agencies. We remain unconvinced of the Bush administration claims because we've heard all this doublespeak before, used as justification for all sorts of military adventurism around the world, where the US interventions have been devastating. Not beneficial Teribus, but devastating. The opinion of many intelligent, well informed people would not agree with your contention that the English and American empires have been a force for good, and therein lies the difference between people like you and people like me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Peter T. Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:13 AM SADDAMSEPTEMBER11NUCLEARTERRORISTSAAAHHHSADDAMSEPTEMBER11ALQAEDAWEAPSONSOFMASSDESTRUCTIONSADDAMAAAHHHHHORRORDESTRUCTIONSADDAMIRAQSEPTEMBER11SADDAMALQEADASADDAMNUCLEARTHREATTOAMERICACHEMICALBIOLOGICAL45MINUTESNUCLEARSEPTEMBER11SADDAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "No, I have no idea why the American people connected Saddam and September 11th. They just get these funny ideas sometime." yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 03 - 09:30 AM Face it folks, the T-Bird ain't ever gonna connect the dots on this one... He apparently ain't got the wiring for it... He is a died in the wool neo-con true believer. He is incapable of accepting the possibility that a massive PR stunt was performed on the world with just enough tiny words thrown in, like the small print on the contract, to fall back on if and when things turned bad. Now that they're turning bad the small print is being dragged out as if it was the substance of the big sell.... Geeze, I'm still wonderin' how so many folks all of a sudden started believing the *Big Three* (Lies) when Bush is now so adament that he had nothing to do with them? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Big Mick Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM Waste of time, folks. One needs to have a desire to use critical thinking skills. One needs to have a desire to actually come to a conclusion, as opposed to being led to a predetermined conclusion. One of the biggest problems I see out there today, on all sides of the equation, is the lack of desire to step outside of the "slogan/title" that folks have assigned themselves. I say I am a progressive, or a liberal, and they assume they know all about me. Our King T is one of these. He has expended so much personal capital defending this guy that there is no way back. I wish he could step outside himself and look at his statements from afar. He would then see how silly they are. In a way he reminds me of the Iraqui official that stood on the roof denying that Americans had entered Bagdad while in the background you could hear the bombs. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Greg F. Date: 02 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM Now, if Dumbya had lied about a blowjob............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:41 PM 15 of the 17 hijackers were Saudis. Bush vowed to get Bin Laden, "We gonna smoke him out". Sure. WHEN? just before the election would be great timing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Amos Date: 02 Dec 03 - 01:47 PM I think he was unduly influienced by Matt Dillon. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 03 - 06:40 PM Notice how the Bush administration has postponed the talks with North Korea until closer to next year elections. These folks ain't stupid... just quite evil amd power hungry... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 02 Dec 03 - 08:05 PM But Matt Dillon always knew who to go after. Never shot the wrong man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: mike the knife Date: 03 Dec 03 - 03:42 PM If there was ANY substantiated intel linking Saddam to either concrete evidence of WMD's or even the most tenuous link to Bin Laden & his ilk, you can ga-ron-tee that W & his crew would have it pinned to their shirts & would not stop crowing about it. They (we?) went in to Iraq guns a-blazing, looking for what we (they?) thought would be the big smoking gun or test tube or whatever. Still haven't found it. The arguement that it's there and for reasons of "National Security" (don't you just love it when they conveniently protect us from knowing too much?) it isn't being shown/talked about is just more bread & circus. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: LadyJean Date: 03 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM Have you heard the news? That Thanksgiving dinner Bush shared with our troops was a Thanksgiving breakfast. He arrived in Bagdad at 6:00 a.m. Iraqi time, and served turkey and dressing to soldiers at 7:00 a.m. Iraqi time. A bit early for the diners, but not for Americans sitting down to their turkey and mashed potatoes, at home. That dirty son of a Bush created a photo op. The dinner was 200 percent phony! And the press hasn't said anything about it! What liberal media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 04 Dec 03 - 02:04 AM LadyJean 03 Dec 03 - 11:21 PM I think that story has been rather comprehensively been de-bunked: President was out of the US for a total of 30 hours; he spent 3 hours on the ground; he left the US on the Wednesday evening, flying East. Remember a little thing called time zones - the guy who first blasted this story over the media certainly did. GWB's Air Force One took off from Baghdad at sometime around 20:00hrs local time; the breakfast you refer to started at 17:00hrs local time in Baghdad. At the moment it is around - 12:05 AM - Houston Texas 01:05 AM - Washington DC 07:05 AM - Central European Time 09:05 AM - Baghdad Your reporter is quoting time from a US time zone, depending on which one add at least at least 8 or 9 hours to it - anyone for a bit of a late breakfast??? Amos 01 Dec 03 - 10:17 AM & others, including Guests, well intentioned, like-minded, well-informed, intelligent friends: The potential threat: An attack by an international terrorist group on a large centre of population using some form of weapon of mass destruction. Rational for that perception: - Attacks of September 11th, 2001 - Terrorist organisations with an international perspective do currently exist, Al-Qaeda is just one example of such a group. - Potential suppliers of the required WMD do exist, Iraq, required by the UN to disarm and rid itself of such weapons had failed to comply to the satisfaction of the UN's inspection teams. Response to Threat: - Streamline intelligence gathering and establish closer co-operation between existing national agencies and with foreign intelligence agencies. - Remove use of a safe base from most significant international terrorist organisation, the one that has already attacked you - Al-Qaeda/Taliban controlled Afghanistan. - Eliminate/Reduce/Restrict possible sources of WMD, WMD technology, WMD components, to such groups. Yes Amos, in general, they are all interlinked. Everyone mentioned in Guest's post of 02 Dec 03 - 08:04 AM can hold whatever opinion they like, they can adopt whatever attitude they like, they can chose to believe, or disbelieve, whatever they like, for one very good reason - They are not the one responsible for the safety, security and well-being of their nation. Land them with that responsibility and faced with certain facts and circumstances, their perspective, with regard to formulation of response/solution, on any given situation would be somewhat constrained. Teribus: I'd try tofind other grounds were I you. The explicit literal statement in words of one syllable you want to argue abhout is not tyhe point. Much more tot he point is the inten tional inter-linking and association of 9-11, Al Qeda, Saddam HUssein, and mass destruction. With strong associations supported by weasel words. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,pdc Date: 04 Dec 03 - 02:06 AM Check the Drudge report -- you will also learn that the big turkey on a platter that Bush is shown holding is made of papier-mache, and all the trimmings around it are also fake. Apparently it was manufactured on the order of the White House, and was carried to Iraq. The soldiers were fed from a steam table. And Lady Jean, the liberal media were, of course, not invited on this little phony jaunt. It will be interesting to see what he does for Christmas. If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down. Never in my life (and I'm not young) have I seen such an ongoing display of cynical, uncaring, in-your-face lying, blatantly and contemptuously performed by a crew of sneering, manipulative rogues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 04 Dec 03 - 08:36 AM He is the second president younger than me, and the ONLY one I have ever DETESTED! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: mike the knife Date: 04 Dec 03 - 11:07 AM Whoah PDC, be careful- statements like : It will be interesting to see what he does for Christmas. If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down. may earn you a visit from the folks that talk into their shirt cuffs. They have long memories and a collective bad sense of humor. They even paid a visit to Hunter S. Thompson a while back when he said that he would "stomp Bush (pater) to death" or something like that. They were not amused & they nearly scared the fudge out of ol' Hunter- and he's not easily rattled. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,pdc Date: 04 Dec 03 - 11:22 AM Good point, MtK - I guess I'm still in the habit of free speech. We will all have to learn that there's no such thing any more, is there? So, what I meant was -- I will hunt him down and give him a good talking to! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 04 Dec 03 - 12:20 PM Mike with regard to pdc's comments: "If he says even one syllable of "peace on earth, good will toward men," I'm going to hunt him down." I don't think there's much for pdc to worry about. Hunter S. Thompson's comments on the other hand were quite well worth the visit, as technically, I believe, he was breaking the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Ebbie Date: 04 Dec 03 - 12:59 PM A slip of the Bush tongue the other day was amusing to me, in a rather macabre way. He was talking about the deadly attacks of insurgents in Iraq and said "This coalition of killers..." He paused and said, "This collection of killers..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: kendall Date: 04 Dec 03 - 03:28 PM It is, and should be against the law to threaten the president. The authorities can't afford to have a sense of humor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Baghdad gets Bushwhacked From: Ebbie Date: 04 Dec 03 - 04:04 PM (You know, this makes me realize that the shadowy figures around the bush have it just the way they want it. He gets the flak, they get to do what they want. Get 'em out. Get 'em all out, I say.) December 4, 2003: The Daily Mis-Leader Quote: The Post notes that "the foray has opened new credibility questions for a White House that has dealt with issues" like this in the past. In fact, the (misleading photo "showing" the president holding a platter of turkey) flap marks the second such distortion in as many days about his trip to Baghdad. Just yesterday it was revealed that the White House's tall tale of Air Force One crossing paths with a British Airways plane was entirely false. The deceptive picture also harkens back to the controversy surrounding the President's "Mission Accomplished" banner. On May 1, he stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln in front of the giant sign and declared that "major combat operations have ended." Since that time, more troops have been killed or wounded than before he made that statement, prompting more questions about his photo-op. When asked why he chose to stand in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner at a press conference six months later, Bush "disavowed the background banner," saying the White House staff had nothing to do with producing it. But then Navy and administration officials admitted the President had been dishonest, saying that "the White House actually made it." White House spokesman Scott McClellan specifically said, "We took care of the production of it. We have people to do those things." Of course, Bush's penchant for taking misleading and dishonest photos has not been confined to Iraq. In July of 2002, the President visited a low-income housing development in Atlanta to tout his commitment to funding it. He then proposed a budget that eliminated its funding. Similarly, the President visited a Boys and Girls Club in January of 2003 to tout the organization's efforts. He said the club "has got a grand history of helping children." Just four days after his photo-op, he proposed to cut 15% out of funding for the Boys and Girls Club. Read the Mis-Lead --> http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1147101&l=10920 |
