President Bush visits Baghdad!

[Cleopatra]

Well. All of you must admit that he has the guts!





http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html


Bush pays surprise visit to U.S. troops in Iraq
Thursday, November 27, 2003

Posted: 1:14 PM EST (1814 GMT)


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- President Bush made a surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to U.S. troops in Iraq.

After meeting with U.S. troops in Baghdad and the Iraqi Governing Council, Bush left Baghdad at about 8 p.m. Iraq time, or noon EST. Air Force One stayed on the ground for just two-and-a-half hours, the White House said.

News of the trip was not released until the president's plane was airborne and headed back to the United States, The Associated Press reported.

"You are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful," Bush told some 600 soldiers, stunned and delighted by his appearance, according to the AP.

Bush slipped away from his Texas ranch Wednesday night at 8:25 EST, flew in and out of Andrews Air Force Base and landed in Baghdad Thursday morning at 9:31 a.m. EST, according to reporters traveling with the president.

The troops, mostly from the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division and the 82nd Airborne, had no idea Bush would be there, Reuters news agency reported.

Without telling anyone that the commander in chief was there, Iraq's U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer told the soldiers he was supposed to read the president's Thanksgiving proclamation to them but would instead defer to the most senior person on the premises, Reuters said.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Well. All of you must admit that he has the guts!

Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...


Come-on Claus, let's be real here. Ignoring security measures doesn't show exceptional courage. This was the only way for him to go there.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Come-on Claus, let's be real here. Ignoring security measures doesn't show exceptional courage. This was the only way for him to go there.

It doesn't? Hmmm....interesting point. What does show exceptional courage, then? :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It doesn't? Hmmm....interesting point. What does show exceptional courage, then? :)

Shall we move this discussion to the Philosophy Forum? :D

The courage a man has shown is judged by the circumstances in any case and the current circumstances didn't favor an open visit. It's only a week since the last hits of Al Qaeda and yet he went to Baghdad.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Shall we move this discussion to the Philosophy Forum? :D

No problems with me. :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The courage a man has shown is judged by the circumstances in any case and the current circumstances didn't favor an open visit. It's only a week since the last hits of Al Qaeda and yet he went to Baghdad.

So, when it's safe(r) to go, he shows courage?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, when it's safe(r) to go, he shows courage?

I didn't say that it was safe to go. I said that for safety reasons he had to go incognito. This doesn't make his decision less courageous!

[geni]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I didn't say that it was safe to go. I said that for safety reasons he had to go incognito. This doesn't make his decision less courageous!

Except Blair beat him by almost 6 months

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2947434.stm

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

Fair enough. So, what does show exceptional courage, then?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Cleopatra,

Fair enough. So, what does show exceptional courage, then?

I don't know... Parading like Lady Godiva in the streets of Baghdad maybe! :p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't know... Parading like Lady Godiva in the streets of Baghdad maybe! :p

Ewwwl.....

Come now, you are evading..... :)

[Frank Newgent]

Like mathematician John Forbes Nash...

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0201/golden.globe/images/1.beautiful.mind.jpg

Karl Rove is doing this all strictly by the numbers

[crackmonkey]

I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move and an honorable tribute to the troops stationed there.
I think that this same level of liberal delusion and hatred are what's keeping Dean afloat, and it's what is going to sink the Dems in November.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move and an honorable tribute to the troops stationed there.
I think that this same level of liberal delusion and hatred are what's keeping Dean afloat, and it's what is going to sink the Dems in November.

What's so gutsy about a 2.5 hour unannounced visit? He's even surrounded by troops. He's probably safer there than in Washington.

Or do you think he left his 700 strong entourage in Britain while he was on his little visit? Well, maybe the chefs- no time for lunch- but the bodyguards et al?

You have a pretty lenient definition of 'guts'.

[crackmonkey]

Perhaps you were unaware - there have been continuing attacks in Baghdad. Surface to air missiles have been fired at planes and copters, mortars and rockets have been used... not too much of this in the USA, pal.
It galls you, doesn't it?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move and an honorable tribute to the troops stationed there.

Hey, I'll take the bait, though I hate nobody.

Hmmm. Without family connections the man would probably be a nobody today.

I guess you got me.


But gutsy? How? Obvious, perhaps. An honorable tribute to the troops plays well on a holiday.

Hard for you to accept that .043 follows a mere Clinton? (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20031125201509990001)

[Zep]

It was PR for re-election. Pure and simple. Politicians will do many things that are a gamble to be re-elected, and the position of US president is one of the biggies. So Bush was simply gambling.

Incidentally, he was pretty safe - I don't think his cojones are THAT much bigger than most guys. For example, a night arrival was much safer than a daytime one with regard to rocket attacks. He was surrounded by security (and then a big bunch of the toughest military the US has to offer). And the short stay minimised the possibility of bad guys finding out, reacting and striking.

Neh. Good PR for the troops and the re-election campaign, but hardly John Wayne stuff.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Perhaps you were unaware - there have been continuing attacks in Baghdad. Surface to air missiles have been fired at planes and copters, mortars and rockets have been used... not too much of this in the USA, pal.
It galls you, doesn't it?

He arrived at night. Even if they did fire upon him at night, somehow knowing that the 'copter had the big Dubya in it, what were the chances of them hitting?

Nope- still say he has more risk in Washington. At least people know when he'll be there.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move...(Aboard Air Force One -- AP) A military analyst says danger to President Bush was "absolutely minimal" as long as his Iraq trip was totally secret. Reporters on the trip had to surrender cell phones, pagers and other devices. Bush's parents and daughters learned about the trip at the very last minute ... The White House says danger made deception and secrecy necessary. One aide warned the trip would be called off if the story broke while Air Force One was airborne.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...

Of course, if he had not come at all, people would be complaining that he is "abandoning" the soliders in Iraq and "has no guts" to travel there himself, and that his refusal to go there shows he is "disconnecred from the facts on the ground".

Or, if he had come in broad daylight and stayed for a week, people would be complaining that he is taking "unncessaey risks" (part of his "cowboy mentality", of course) which merely "puts the soldiers in more danger"; besides, instead of such "PR visits" he should spend more time getting out of Iraq.

This sort of thing is why I don't really listen to anti-Bush criticism anymore: it is a constant, like an air-conditioner's humming noise, which goes on no matter what Bush does (or does not) do.

As a recent example, consider his recent speech in Britian where he emphasized the need for democratizing the middle east. A very good speech, in my opinion (whether such speeches matter at all is a different issue). Of course, this was attacked as being a "string of unrealistic cliches" (or words to that effect).

But what if he had given a different speech? Had he given a speech not mentioning Iraq, he would have been attacked for giving an "irrelevant speech" which "does not touch on the main issue".

Had he given a speech about the middle east that does NOT include democratizing the area, he would have been attacked for "abandoning his plans" and showing that the "real reason" of the Iraqi war was oil all along.

And so on and so forth... when EVERYTHING Bush does is instanty spinned to be "stupid" or "cowardly" or "for oil" or "in violation of international law", etc., you stop listening, for the same reason you shouldn't listen to other conspiracy theories.

You already know in advance what they're going to say about the "real reason" Bush did X... even if they didn't actually know Bush actually DID X until ten seconds ago, like in this case.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Of course, if he had not come at all, people would be complaining that he is "abandoning" the soliders in Iraq and "has no guts" to travel there himself, and that his refusal to go there shows he is "disconnecred from the facts on the ground".

Or, if he had come in broad daylight and stayed for a week, people would be complaining that he is taking "unncessaey risks" (part of his "cowboy mentality", of course) which merely "puts the soldiers in more danger"; besides, instead of such "PR visits" he should spend more time getting out of Iraq.

This sort of thing is why I don't really listen to anti-Bush criticism anymore: it is a constant, like an air-conditioner's humming noise, which goes on no matter what Bush does (or does not) do.

As a recent example, consider his recent speech in Britian where he emphasized the need for democratizing the middle east. A very good speech, in my opinion (whether such speeches matter at all is a different issue). Of course, this was attacked as being a "string of unrealistic cliches" (or words to that effect).

But what if he had given a different speech? Had he given a speech not mentioning Iraq, he would have been attacked for giving an "irrelevant speech" which "does not touch on the main issue".

Had he given a speech about the middle east that does NOT include democratizing the area, he would have been attacked for "abandoning his plans" and showing that the "real reason" of the Iraqi war was oil all along.

And so on and so forth... when EVERYTHING Bush does is instanty spinned to be "stupid" or "cowardly" or "for oil" or "in violation of international law", etc., you stop listening, for the same reason you shouldn't listen to other conspiracy theories.

You already know in advance what they're going to say about the "real reason" Bush did X... even if they didn't actually know Bush actually DID X until ten seconds ago, like in this case.

Do you think people don't trust Bush's motives anymore because he's a proven liar?

[geni]

Bush vists in the middle of the night

Blair vists during the day

Bush says for 2.5 hours

Blair stays for rather longer

Bush stays in a millitery base

Blair vists a school

hmmm...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Do you think people don't trust Bush's motives anymore because he's a proven liar?

Do you know someone who has never lied? If so, how do you know?

Wonder how they did as a politician?

[Dorian Gray]

You want guts? Clinton 'visited' Monica Lewinsky for hours on several occasions over the course of a few months. Top THAT!

[Segnosaur]

Bush did not visit here. Bush was thousands of miles away. If Bush visits here, we will feast on the bowels of the infidel!

[BTox]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move and an honorable tribute to the troops stationed there.
I think that this same level of liberal delusion and hatred are what's keeping Dean afloat, and it's what is going to sink the Dems in November.

Yes sir. And notice the sound of crickets here in reference to Medicare reform...

[demon]

Yes, brave like he was when he avoided Vietnam.
It`s about on par with the much vaunted heroism of Jessica Lynch although at least she seems to be keeping it real now.

At least they could have taken him to Baghdad Zoo where he could have shot a caged tiger like those other brave boys. Fox and CNN could have spun that story good time.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by BTox


Yes sir. And notice the sound of crickets here in reference to Medicare reform...
http://www.intellivu.com/main.asp?brand=&fnum=142

Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.

SNIP

Republicans voting against the bill were told they were endangering their political futures. Major contributors warned Rep. Jim DeMint they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina. A Missouri state legislator called Rep. Todd Akin to threaten a primary challenge against him.

SNIP

Feeney held firm against the bill. So did DeMint and Akin. And so did Nick Smith. A steadfast party regular, he has pioneered private Social Security accounts. But he could not swallow the unfunded liabilities in this Medicare bill. The 69-year-old former dairy farmer this week was still reeling from the threat to his son. "It was absolutely too personal," he told me. Over the telephone from Michigan Saturday, Brad Smith urged his father to vote his conscience.


The sound of crickets is not unusual at 4:00AM.

[crackmonkey]

Yeah, politics can be ugly. Your point?

[bjornart]

OK, allow me to be the left wing voice of reason here. Bushy showed courage going to Bagdad, and staying only a short time was a reasonable safety precausion.

Courage is doing something you know carries risks. If any rumor of Bush' visit had leaked out there is a chance it would have reached the nasties in Iraq, and who among them would have missed the opportunity to at least try to send an RPG or SAM at the vegetable? Bush knew this, he was concerned about the risk, and he did it anyway. Would it have been even more courageous to stay longer, visit elsewhere, not ask your security every second if they're sure no rumors have leaked out? Sure, but lets not require miracles. (So I can't be _all_ reason, sue me! :D)

Compairing the visit to Blair's is unfair. Blair visited newly occupied Southern Iraq, there was no history of suicide bombings against Iraqis, Occupants and Independents, no forreign terrorist, local terrorist and local lunatic groups known to be hiding in the bushes. He had much less reason to believe he'd be an irresistible target. Not that he wasn't coragous to go, it just doesn't detract from Bush' trip.

Bush's motives are, of course, up to interpretation. Undoubtedly he feel he owes the soldiers, undoubtedly he knew it would make great publicity, and (much less certainly) he'd do anything to get away from Thanksgiving Dinner with his family. Which of these weighed the most is anyones guess, and as we can see from this thread, everyone thinks their guess is the truth.

Politicians can do good things with both publicity and real concerns in mind, it's just impossible to know the difference.

[The Don]

Much as I dislike President Bush, the visit demonstrated why he was able to get close enough to Gore to steal (or "steal" if you prefer) the election. The visit demonstrated political savvy which is bound to play well with the waverers back home.

His "aw shucks" performance was also well played. I remember the Editor of the Daily Telegraph (a conservative and Conservative daily "quality" 'paper in the UK) saying that "Bush comes across as being aimiable but stupid, he is of course neither"

I'm willing to believe that he's a nasty piece of work, but I prefer to think of him as cunning rather than smart.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course, if he had not come at all, people would be complaining that he is "abandoning" the soliders in Iraq and "has no guts" to travel there himself, and that his refusal to go there shows he is "disconnecred from the facts on the ground".

Or, if he had come in broad daylight and stayed for a week, people would be complaining that he is taking "unncessaey risks" (part of his "cowboy mentality", of course) which merely "puts the soldiers in more danger"; besides, instead of such "PR visits" he should spend more time getting out of Iraq.

This sort of thing is why I don't really listen to anti-Bush criticism anymore: it is a constant, like an air-conditioner's humming noise, which goes on no matter what Bush does (or does not) do.

As a recent example, consider his recent speech in Britian where he emphasized the need for democratizing the middle east. A very good speech, in my opinion (whether such speeches matter at all is a different issue). Of course, this was attacked as being a "string of unrealistic cliches" (or words to that effect).

But what if he had given a different speech? Had he given a speech not mentioning Iraq, he would have been attacked for giving an "irrelevant speech" which "does not touch on the main issue".

Had he given a speech about the middle east that does NOT include democratizing the area, he would have been attacked for "abandoning his plans" and showing that the "real reason" of the Iraqi war was oil all along.

And so on and so forth... when EVERYTHING Bush does is instanty spinned to be "stupid" or "cowardly" or "for oil" or "in violation of international law", etc., you stop listening, for the same reason you shouldn't listen to other conspiracy theories.

You already know in advance what they're going to say about the "real reason" Bush did X... even if they didn't actually know Bush actually DID X until ten seconds ago, like in this case.

What if, what if.....you cannot speculate on what you think people would have done. You have to deal with the real world. You can't just close your eyes and ears to criticism, especially if it is about someone who you support.

Heck, you could actually be wrong about Bush, couldn't you?

....well, theoretically.....right?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...

For all those who think Bush's short trip wasnt gutsy enough, would you suggest Bush do next time he take a stroll through Bagdad? Should arrive at noon, with loud rap music and half naked women dancing around him? Should he paint a glow-in-the-dark Neon Orange target on his bum, bend over and wave it at the crowd? Should he streak round the streets of Bagdad giving high-fives all at the same time?

I dont care for Bush much but give him a break...

[Zep]

...a permanent break for Bush from the position of president would be the best break the US could get.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...

The soldiers under his command appear not to agree with your assessment.

Like the much criticised aircraft carrier photo-op, the main effect is that it's great for the morale of the troops.

As President one of his duties is to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, these photo-ops are much more effective morale boosters than handing out medals or something.

Bush can reasonably be criticised for many things, but in this case he's just doing his job and doing it well.

What effect it has on others can take care of itself, whether the media, or scrimshanking civilians such as myself, or people in other countries such as yourself (of whatever political persuasion).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by geni
Bush vists in the middle of the night

Blair vists during the day

Bush says for 2.5 hours

Blair stays for rather longer

Bush stays in a millitery base

Blair vists a school

hmmm...

Bush versus Blair? But of course they are on the same side and Blair gets plenty of flak for it.

Proposition: Blair beats Bush in the balls department.

Considering that Blair is going against a sizable faction of his own party (and Bush is not), there's definitely a cogent argument for that proposition.

It still doesn't mean that Bush was wrong to go to Baghdad for Thanksgiving.

[Filthy Animal]

I have not seen one scrap of evidence that Bush even made this trip. The whole thing could have been filmed in the US in some studio, with Bremer and a few others flown in.

That is the rumour circulating now.

[BillyTK]

Bush'd've shown more guts if on his recent visit to the UK, he'd landed at Heathrow and passed the anti-war protestors by driving to Buckingham Palace, rather than flying directly there and destroying HM's lovely gardens (http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=13652625&method=full&siteid=106694).

[Loon]

Extra time at work, so I'll throw my opinion into the ring.

I don't like Bush very much.
I think invading Iraq was a bad idea.

I think this was a great thing. It may have been a cold, calculating move to create great spin, but it was great. I'm in a cushy office very far away from Iraq where the involvement I have with the occupation is to hear about it on CNN. And it still brought tears to my eyes.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Yahweh
For all those who think Bush's short trip wasnt gutsy enough, would you suggest Bush do next time he take a stroll through Bagdad? Should arrive at noon, with loud rap music and half naked women dancing around him? Should he paint a glow-in-the-dark Neon Orange target on his bum, bend over and wave it at the crowd? Should he streak round the streets of Bagdad giving high-fives all at the same time?

I dont care for Bush much but give him a break...

The war in Iraq is over, right?

The schools are open, right?

The hospitals are open, right?

The power is back to prewar levels, right?

The water supply is back to prewar levels, right?

Life is "basically quite normal" in Iraq, right?

Yet, Bush has to fly in under huge security measures and stay for less than 3 hours.


Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
The soldiers under his command appear not to agree with your assessment.

Are you now speaking for the soldiers?

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Like the much criticised aircraft carrier photo-op, the main effect is that it's great for the morale of the troops.

The main effect is that it's great for Bush' re-election bid. Don't kid yourself.

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
As President one of his duties is to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. As such, these photo-ops are much more effective morale boosters than handing out medals or something.

They sure are better morale boosters than showing dead Americans coming back from Iraq. Which Americans are not allowed to see, btw...

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Bush can reasonably be criticised for many things, but in this case he's just doing his job and doing it well.

Yeah, well, he's a politican... :)

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
What effect it has on others can take care of itself, whether the media, or scrimshanking civilians such as myself, or people in other countries such as yourself (of whatever political persuasion).

Beg to differ. Bush is by far the most powerful man in the world, and what he does affects you (as an American) as well as me (as a non-American). To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Proposition: Blair beats Bush in the balls

I would pay good money to see this.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The war in Iraq is over, right?

Wrong. Very, very wrong!

The schools are open, right?
The hospitals are open, right?

This may be true.

The power is back to prewar levels, right?

Maybe, maybe not. Not to the point.

The water supply is back to prewar levels, right?

Maybe, maybe not. Not to the point.

Life is "basically quite normal" in Iraq, right?

Of course not, but still quite a bit better than it was under Saddam Hussein, Do you dispute that?

Yet, Bush has to fly in under huge security measures and stay for less than 3 hours.

It was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Are you now speaking for the soldiers?

Of course not, but I suspect they would hate you.

The main effect is that it's great for Bush's re-election bid. Don't kid yourself.

Of course that is one effect. So what? The effect on morale makes the troops more effective. Your statement is equivalent to saying that Bush's reelection is bad because it benefits the United States. The Democrats would disagree, at least in their public pronouncements.

They sure are better morale boosters than showing dead Americans coming back from Iraq. Which Americans are not allowed to see, btw...

Yeah, well, he's a politican... :)

Beg to differ. Bush is by far the most powerful man in the world, and what he does affects you (as an American) as well as me (as a non-American). To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.

Yadda yadda yadda!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Wrong. Very, very wrong!

Hey, just repeating what Bush said...

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
This may be true.
...
Maybe, maybe not. Not to the point.
...
Maybe, maybe not. Not to the point.
...
Of course not, but still quite a bit better than it was under Saddam Hussein, Do you dispute that?

Hey, just repeating what Bremer said....

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
It was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Perhaps. But it does sort of puts the previous claims of normality into perspective, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Of course not, but I suspect they would hate you.

You don't speak for the soldiers and only suspect that they would "hate" me. Why? For excercizing free speech?

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Of course that is one effect. So what? The effect on morale makes the troops more effective. Your statement is equivalent to saying that Bush's reelection is bad because it benefits the United States. The Democrats would disagree, at least in their public pronouncements.

No, what I am saying is the Bush's reelection is bad because it does not benefit either the US or the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Yadda yadda yadda!

Yes, OK, fine, shut your eyes and ears, and imagine that the US is the whole world....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Beg to differ. Bush is by far the most powerful man in the world, and what he does affects you (as an American) as well as me (as a non-American). To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.
Must be tough, realizing you & your "country" are as worthless as tits on a boar in the overall scheme of things. :(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hammegk
Must be tough, realizing you & your "country" are as worthless as tits on a boar in the overall scheme of things. :(

That was perhaps the most stupid, narrow-minded, haughty and obtuse thing I have heard in a very long time.

Don't try so hard to prove that the stereotypic Dumb-American exists. Or, perhaps it comes natural to you?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yeah, real guts. Chicken guts. He flew in under cover of darkness, unannounced, stayed for 2.5 hours, and flew off again.

What a contrast to the soldiers under his command...

The fact is Claus, he went. Undoubtedly he went against the better advice of the secret service. The thing is Claus, you're a smart guy, yet you are a slave to your own bias.

Why don't you either give the man a nod for doing a good thing, or else just admit to us all that no matter what Bush does he will always come up short in your eyes.

Your anti-Bush attitude is as unfallible as a religion isn't it? Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough. I'm surprised you seem unable to see this side of yourself for what it truly is: IRRATIONAL.

Instead of asking someone to give you their purely subjective version of courage, why don't you tell us what Bush would have to do to gain your respect, if not your support.

-z

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zep
...a permanent break for Bush from the position of president would be the best break the US could get.

That'll happen Jan, 2009. Whether it is "the best break" is highly debatable.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You don't speak for the soldiers and only suspect that they would "hate" me. Why? For excercizing free speech?


Just an intuition which might possibly be wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong.

I don't speak for anybody but myself.

I think they would hate you because you are against them.

Certainly you have the right to free speech, but people you are fighting to destroy will hate you, without necessarily denying your right to say so.

Let freedom ring! Let everyone honestly say how they feel, including if they are against freedom.

After you the deluge, maybe?

[BTox]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, what I am saying is the Bush's reelection is bad because it does not benefit either the US or the rest of the world.



Personal opinion, and from someone that doesn't live or vote here. Where are the facts to support such an absurd claim?

[BTox]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Your anti-Bush attitude is as unfallible as a religion isn't it? Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough. I'm surprised you seem unable to see this side of yourself for what it truly is: IRRATIONAL.


Perfectly stated. It is amusing to see what happens to self-proclaimed skeptics when the subject of politics comes around...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by BTox


Personal opinion, and from someone that doesn't live or vote here. Where are the facts to support such an absurd claim?

Btox,

Claus is an ok guy...I met him @ TAM and talked with him a little. Even snapped his pic with one very cute little Brazilian chick. ;)
Luciana herself no less!

Claus may be a Dane, but he's also a New Yorker. Hell, if he's been naturalized he might even be a voter. He's a little skinny guy with white hair, but he's not old....(fortyish if I had to guess).... and very charming. Sadly, when people get on these forums they tend to think of manners as unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------

Claus, I must say that after meeting you I liked you in spite of my fervent desire not to. I think you're a good guy and a fine skeptic, I just wish you'd apply just a tad of that skepticism toward your own political biases.

-z

[BTox]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Btox,

Claus is an ok guy...I met him @ TAM and talked with him a little. Even snapped his pic with one very cute little Brazilian chick. ;)
Luciana herself no less!


I'm sure he is. I enjoy his posts on the science and other forums. I think the problem is it is difficult for any of us to remain rational, scientific and skeptical when the topic (like politics) is by nature so irrational and unscientific. Passions and bias rule the day, myself included.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rikzilla
The fact is Claus, he went. Undoubtedly he went against the better advice of the secret service. The thing is Claus, you're a smart guy, yet you are a slave to your own bias.

Aren't we all? Can anyone say that he or she is unbiased? If we lack hardcore evidence, like in science, who can say who is right? We are primarily talking about politics here. Who has no bias in politics?

Originally posted by rikzilla
Why don't you either give the man a nod for doing a good thing, or else just admit to us all that no matter what Bush does he will always come up short in your eyes.

Is this a "good thing"? It could be. I'm sure some people were happy to see the President show up in their cantina. But as a general morale booster? I see it as a symbolic event, with very little practical value.

Sorry, I'm just not all that impressed with those kinds of stunts. I have a family member stationed in Iraq right now, and his wife is alone here with two small kids. We all want to see him home safe, as soon as possible. That is not likely to happen, as long as Bush is underestimating the problems with removing Saddam.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Your anti-Bush attitude is as unfallible as a religion isn't it? Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough. I'm surprised you seem unable to see this side of yourself for what it truly is: IRRATIONAL.

No, it is being CONCERNED about having a man with so much power and so little knowledge of what the world is really like.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Instead of asking someone to give you their purely subjective version of courage, why don't you tell us what Bush would have to do to gain your respect, if not your support.

He would have to start admitting that the universe is older than 6-10,000 years, and what follows from that. Whether he is a Republican or Democrat means very little to me: Both parties are somewhat indistinguishable anyway.

No, what really bugs me is that Bush is so uneducated for the job. He had an extremely poor understanding of foreign affairs before he was (s)elected, and his policies have not improved that much. He is very poorly equipped to hold such a job with such a tremendous responsibility. That he is not smart is one thing. But that he shows so little interest in learning is quite another.

Another thing is the false claims of WMD and the perceived connenction between Saddam and Al Queda. Don't even think about playing that down. Those were the official reasons why we went to war, and we have seen no evidence of either yet.

Sure, politics is dirty business, but we are not talking about a mere reelection to City Hall here. We are talking about a war. It would be nice if the reasons to send those soldiers off were valid.

If you must know, I thought he handled 9-11 quite well and effectively.





Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I think they would hate you because you are against them.

Certainly you have the right to free speech, but people you are fighting to destroy will hate you, without necessarily denying your right to say so.

Let freedom ring! Let everyone honestly say how they feel, including if they are against freedom.

After you the deluge, maybe?

What are you talking about?? Who am I "fighting to destroy"??



Originally posted by BTox
Personal opinion, and from someone that doesn't live or vote here. Where are the facts to support such an absurd claim?

It is my opinion, but from someone who has spent years living in the US.

No, I didn't vote. As a deploring number of Americans don't, either. To be able to vote, I'd have to give up my Danish citizenship, which will not happen.

Originally posted by BTox
Perfectly stated. It is amusing to see what happens to self-proclaimed skeptics when the subject of politics comes around...

I would love to see you apply skepticism to politics. Can you point to the empirical evidence that Politician X is right?


Originally posted by rikzilla
Btox,

Claus is an ok guy...I met him @ TAM and talked with him a little. Even snapped his pic with one very cute little Brazilian chick. ;)
Luciana herself no less!

Ah, that was you? :)

Originally posted by rikzilla
Claus may be a Dane, but he's also a New Yorker. Hell, if he's been naturalized he might even be a voter. He's a little skinny guy with white hair, but he's not old....(fortyish if I had to guess).... and very charming. Sadly, when people get on these forums they tend to think of manners as unnecessary.

I don't see my posts as being particularly bad manners. How do you figure that?

Originally posted by rikzilla
Claus, I must say that after meeting you I liked you in spite of my fervent desire not to. I think you're a good guy and a fine skeptic, I just wish you'd apply just a tad of that skepticism toward your own political biases.

You should, together with BTox, try to apply skepticism to politics.

The stage is yours, guys... :)

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough.

Of course, that really has nothing to do with what's being discussed. Bush didn't stand watch, and it seems pretty unlikely that he would.

Bush's trip was good for morale for his troops. That's terrific. Way to go W.

It will also look pretty good to a lot of Americans come election time. Anyone who thinks that element wasn't part of the decision to go is just being naive, perhaps purposely.

[Mr Manifesto]

Bush's Iraq visit a pre-election PR stunt: analysis (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s999853.htm)





(just so you know we aren't the only Bush haters in the world. ;) )

[King of the Americas]

Is that biased?

I think some might think so...

I guess I have mixed feelings about this event.

Our President flew in 'absolute secrecy' to the front lines in the War on Terrorism, 'served' Thanksgiving Dinner to some 600 troops, and was back in the air some 10,000 feet before ANY word of it was moved to the media.

My questions would be considered 'hostile' in nature, but you decide for yourself:

-Is the POINT to 'showcase' American provided Security, by saying this place is SO safe, that even Our President is welcome in Baghdad Iraq?

-If Baghdad Iraq is SO 'safe' then why the need for all the secrecy?

---

In any case, the pulled it off. The troops that commented said they felt 'vendicated' (however Military Law prohibits them from saying ANYTHING negative about the President, the Commander in Chief), and that the U.S. is still firmly behind them and their completing the mission.

And now we are all talking about it, some saying this was 'brave'.

But again, does sincere bravery, require so much secrecy?

I thought the brave were brave because of a willingness to face danger head on and in the open...

...to move in darkness and secrecy...

...to make yourself known to the 'few', and NOT the many...

...to hide...

...but further to succeed at the endeavor!

I find the event was interestingly telling of an ability to 'cover-up' an international event, media censorship...or media delayment?

Good or Bad?

I am not sure...

[The Don]

Politically expedient, not brave

[King of the Americas]

...IN Baghdad...

...is anywhere there really safe?

How 'overlapping' are the pockets of resistance, if existant at all?

Bigger question, when will he make this trip in a public diplomatic manner?

[crackmonkey]

Cute post. Manifesto... 'a selection of a few European left-wing rags and Arab Islamofascist tabloids criticize Bush's visit'.
I'm shocked! Shocked!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ah, that was you? :)

Yeah,...I didn't want to freak you out by introducing myself to you as "rikzilla" though. (I believe we got off to a rather bad start way back in the forum's formative months.)



I don't see my posts as being particularly bad manners. How do you figure that?

No, not particularly....but sometimes....and it's a fault I share with you, along with countless others around here. I guess the real difference is that some posters actually try to be rude. (not that I think you're guilty of that) No, my comment on bad manners is more general than specific.


You should, together with BTox, try to apply skepticism to politics.

The stage is yours, guys... :)

Ah,...touche!

Actually, I believe that my time on the JREF forum has caused me to open my eyes to alot of divergent possibilities, and perspectives. I know myself quite a bit better, have good reasons for being unabashedly right of center politically...but I've tried hard to apply skepticism to my politics where I can.

As a result, I'm not one of those who think Bush can do no wrong, but you do indeed come across as one who thinks he can do no right.

I think the question at hand was; Did Bush do a good thing by celebrating turkey-day with the troops? As an ex-GI, I say a resounding yes. As a skeptic I have to wonder if it was just a cynical political move. But in the end it's obvious to me,..the man did a risky thing that he really didn't have to do...the troops appreciated it. To say that he didn't go far enough is uncheritable to say the least...and makes you sound not only biased but petulant. But hey, that's just my opinion. :)

Skepticism is an objective tool, and politics is subjective,...opinion-driven. Anyway, you knew that already and caught me out. :p ;)

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Cute post. Manifesto... 'a selection of a few European left-wing rags and Arab Islamofascist tabloids criticize Bush's visit'.
I'm shocked! Shocked!

The London Times is a left-wing rag?


Hint: It's owned by the same person who brought you the 'fair and balanced' Fox.

[Skeptic]

The war in Iraq is over, right?

The schools are open, right?

The hospitals are open, right?

The power is back to prewar levels, right?

The water supply is back to prewar levels, right?

Life is "basically quite normal" in Iraq, right?

Yet, Bush has to fly in under huge security measures and stay for less than 3 hours.

(shrug)

So? If Bush came to visit YOUR apartment, the secret service would have to secure the place and probably limit the time he could stay there due to security concerns.

Does that mean life in your apartment is somehow especially dangerous? No, it means that the president of the USA is the #1 target for assassination anywhere in the world.

The main effect is that it's great for Bush' re-election bid. Don't kid yourself.

Well, I'm shocked--SHOCKED!--that Bush, a politician, thinks about the re-election.

But even if he does, so what? How does that make the act of joining the troops somehow evil or worthless? If Bush pushed an old lady out of the path of an approaching bus, that, too, would make him look good and help his re-election bid.

Does that mean he shouldn't do it just not to be "hypocritical"?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Well, I'm shocked--SHOCKED!--that Bush, a politician, thinks about the re-election.

But even if he does, so what? How does that make the act of joining the troops somehow evil or worthless? If Bush pushed an old lady out of the path of an approaching bus, that, too, would make him look good and help his re-election bid.

Does that mean he shouldn't do it just not to be "hypocritical"?

You're getting side-tracked. The issue is not whether or not it was hypocritical, it's whether it was 'gutsy'. That's not to say the gesture was worthless, but you can hardly appraise Bush of having courage when you consider that he was only on the ground for a couple of hours.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That was perhaps the most stupid, narrow-minded, haughty and obtuse thing I have heard in a very long time.
Dammit, I was trying for the all-time award. Do I still win a prize?


Don't try so hard to prove that the stereotypic Dumb-American exists. Or, perhaps it comes natural to you?

Yeah, I know, diplo-speak is what everyone wants to hear -- until bullets start flying. Truth, as is often the case, hurts.

You want to worry about US politics? Who cares do you suppose?
Anyway, no way to stop Eurotrash-leftist babble; people usually just ignore it. Sorry to rain on your parade.

[Skeptic]

Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough.

And if it WAS dangerous, he would claim Bush was simply "putting the soldiers in danger" with his "cowboy politics" that merely "cover up the failure of his mideast policy".

Hell, if Bush did go on partol, the partol was attacked by Iraqis, and Bush would single-handedly kill them all in hand-to-hand combat while saving the lives of all the US troops, he would accuse him of being a "murderer" and that his "little stunt" was a "reckless gamble with the lives of the soldiers".

For Larsen, when Bush does something bad, it's proof that he's evil, but when he does something good, it's just "PR" and "thinking about reelection".

Ah well, you just can't win with some people...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by hammegk

You want to worry about US politics? Who cares do you suppose?
Anyway, no way to stop Eurotrash-leftist babble; people usually just ignore it. Sorry to rain on your parade.

If, by 'people' you mean, 'dumb@$$ Yanks', then yes, you're right.

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry Claus but I must agree with the others here that you leave your strong political opinion regarding Bush to blur your vision.

What did you expect him to do in order to admit that in this case he showed some courage?

It would be totally silly on his part to announce his visit in Baghdad.

The visit was a trick indeed but it was nicely set and it had a great success.

If something went wrong the consequences he'd have to pay they'd be multiple of the points he finally gained.

[Clancie]

Well, he flew in in total secrecy, under the cover of darkness, and (not sure about this part, but it looks from the AP report that he stayed only 2 and a half hours at the Baghdad airport)--with a total news blackout until he was already safely on his way home. It doesn't get much safer than that.

This trip took no more courage than any US President needs, travelling anywhere in the world these days. Actually, probably a lot less than other trips.

That said, and speaking as someone who despises Bush (or, specifically, just about every one of his policies)...I thought it was a great idea to do it. I -don't- think it was just a PR stunt, but a kind of spirited symbolism of reaching out, something that is pretty typical of his personality. (He is a former cheerleader, after all. ).

I thought it was quite exhilarating to watch "the surprise" on the news--and, of course, great symbolism for all of the troops far from home on Thanksgiving, not just the ones there with him at the airport.

A great idea, imo (the hardest part of which would be turning around right away for the 11 hour flight back home...even in the lap of luxury that is Air Force One....t-i-r-i-n-g!)

[King of the Americas]

Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough.

And if it WAS dangerous, he would claim Bush was simply "putting the soldiers in danger" with his "cowboy politics" that merely "cover up the failure of his mideast policy".

Hell, if Bush did go on partol, the partol was attacked by Iraqis, and Bush would single-handedly kill them all in hand-to-hand combat while saving the lives of all the US troops, he would accuse him of being a "murderer" and that his "little stunt" was a "reckless gamble with the lives of the soldiers".

For Larsen, when Bush does something bad, it's proof that he's evil, but when he does something good, it's just "PR" and "thinking about reelection".

Ah well, you just can't win with some people...

*Cough*Strawman*cough*:o

[crackmonkey]

Manifesto - I couldn't let this one slide. The London Times didn't criticize Bush, as most of the rags in your link did. They called it an 'audacious publicity coup' which it undoubtedy was, but far from an empty gesture.
My point stands.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Yeah,...I didn't want to freak you out by introducing myself to you as "rikzilla" though. (I believe we got off to a rather bad start way back in the forum's formative months.)

Ah, gone are those heady days of our (skeptical) youth.... :)

There is no way you could "freak me out"...except perhaps by dressing up as Jeff Corey! :)

Originally posted by rikzilla
No, not particularly....but sometimes....and it's a fault I share with you, along with countless others around here. I guess the real difference is that some posters actually try to be rude. (not that I think you're guilty of that) No, my comment on bad manners is more general than specific.

Trust me, if I am rude, you will know! :)

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ah,...touche!

...and down he goes... ;)

Originally posted by rikzilla
As a result, I'm not one of those who think Bush can do no wrong, but you do indeed come across as one who thinks he can do no right.

Read back.

Originally posted by rikzilla
I think the question at hand was; Did Bush do a good thing by celebrating turkey-day with the troops? As an ex-GI, I say a resounding yes. As a skeptic I have to wonder if it was just a cynical political move. But in the end it's obvious to me,..the man did a risky thing that he really didn't have to do...the troops appreciated it. To say that he didn't go far enough is uncheritable to say the least...and makes you sound not only biased but petulant. But hey, that's just my opinion.

I am NOT petulant!!!! (stomps the ground) :D

Originally posted by rikzilla
Skepticism is an objective tool, and politics is subjective,...opinion-driven. Anyway, you knew that already and caught me out.

Yep. I'm way ahead of you... ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hammegk
Dammit, I was trying for the all-time award. Do I still win a prize?

The competition is stiff. But you got a shot at it.

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, I know, diplo-speak is what everyone wants to hear -- until bullets start flying. Truth, as is often the case, hurts.

You think you can throw insults, and when people point it out, declare yourself a winner because "truth hurts"? That is so lame...

Originally posted by hammegk
You want to worry about US politics? Who cares do you suppose?

You should. Or do you just not care?

Originally posted by hammegk
Anyway, no way to stop Eurotrash-leftist babble; people usually just ignore it. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Yes, well, those who apply for the prize...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Even if Bush stood patrol with the men you'd likely say it wasn't long enough, or far enough, or truly dangerous enough.

And if it WAS dangerous, he would claim Bush was simply "putting the soldiers in danger" with his "cowboy politics" that merely "cover up the failure of his mideast policy".

Hell, if Bush did go on partol, the partol was attacked by Iraqis, and Bush would single-handedly kill them all in hand-to-hand combat while saving the lives of all the US troops, he would accuse him of being a "murderer" and that his "little stunt" was a "reckless gamble with the lives of the soldiers".

If, if, if, if....you spend a great deal of time imagining things, don't you?

Originally posted by Skeptic
For Larsen, when Bush does something bad, it's proof that he's evil, but when he does something good, it's just "PR" and "thinking about reelection".

Read back.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Ah well, you just can't win with some people...

Not if they can't read...

[BTox]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, what really bugs me is that Bush is so uneducated for the job. He had an extremely poor understanding of foreign affairs before he was (s)elected, and his policies have not improved that much. He is very poorly equipped to hold such a job with such a tremendous responsibility. That he is not smart is one thing. But that he shows so little interest in learning is quite another.

Thanks for your opinion but most of us disagree.


Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is my opinion, but from someone who has spent years living in the US.

I don't see the relevance of this, unless you are a permanent resident and had no plans to return to Denmark.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, I didn't vote. As a deploring number of Americans don't, either. To be able to vote, I'd have to give up my Danish citizenship, which will not happen.

I've read this several times here and again do not see the relevance of our voter turnout. It hasn't changed much in the last 20+ years, BTW. Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to vote here. Those who choose not to participate and then bitch about the outcome seem pretty silly to me. And as silly as those that cannot participate because they are not even citizens.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I would love to see you apply skepticism to politics. Can you point to the empirical evidence that Politician X is right?


No, nor can you point to empirical evidence that Politician X is wrong. I stated as such in my follow-up post. As a scientist, I really don't take politics that seriously for just these reasons. But it is fun to argue about it. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry Claus but I must agree with the others here that you leave your strong political opinion regarding Bush to blur your vision.

I have a vision?? Wasn't that Bush senior? :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What did you expect him to do in order to admit that in this case he showed some courage?

It would be totally silly on his part to announce his visit in Baghdad.

The visit was a trick indeed but it was nicely set and it had a great success.

If something went wrong the consequences he'd have to pay they'd be multiple of the points he finally gained.

Quite contrary: He came in like a thief at night, stayed at the airport for a few hours and snuck out again. You don't think that's how the Iraquis will view it? "Some safe country THAT guy has provided us..."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, he flew in in total secrecy, under the cover of darkness, and (not sure about this part, but it looks from the AP report that he stayed only 2 and a half hours at the Baghdad airport)--with a total news blackout until he was already safely on his way home. It doesn't get much safer than that.

This trip took no more courage than any US President needs, travelling anywhere in the world these days. Actually, probably a lot less than other trips.

That said, and speaking as someone who despises Bush (or, specifically, just about every one of his policies)...I thought it was a great idea to do it. I -don't- think it was just a PR stunt, but a kind of spirited symbolism of reaching out, something that is pretty typical of his personality. (He is a former cheerleader, after all. ).

I thought it was quite exhilarating to watch "the surprise" on the news--and, of course, great symbolism for all of the troops far from home on Thanksgiving, not just the ones there with him at the airport.

A great idea, imo (the hardest part of which would be turning around right away for the 11 hour flight back home...even in the lap of luxury that is Air Force One....t-i-r-i-n-g!)

I can see that you feel different, but I don't despise Bush at all. I have nothing against him personally. I am very concerned about his lack of skills, as well as the other reasons I gave. What he did in school says nothing about his skills or abilities to be the most powerful man on the planet. Launching a character attack adds nothing to the discussion here. Let's try to keep it from turning into a Who-Can-Spew-Most-Bile-About-Bush-As-A-Person competition, shall we?

Is Bush a nice fella? Probably - I don't see a string of stories depicting him as a mean muddahfornicator. But even if he was, I hope I would not let that interfere with what he is actually doing.

He seems to have beaten his alcoholism, which is highly admirable. Oops, another thing... :)

[Clancie]

Posted by BTox

Those who choose not to participate and then bitch about the outcome seem pretty silly to me.
Not really, BTox. Unfortunately, many American policies have direct impact on the rest of the world--and none of those countries have any opportunity to choose our presidents (and the resulting policies that so impact them...).

And...just a reminder....I won't bring up Florida (again) but Bush did not have the support of the majority of voters last time, either....

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancie

And...just a reminder....I won't bring up Florida (again) but Bush did not have the support of the majority of voters last time, either....

If you look, maybe you can find a democracy rather than a democratic republic to live in, vote in, and complain about.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Personally I think Bush is a flaming idiot and the rush to war was unessecery I also think that the trip had as much to do with re-election posing as anything else....


The fact is tho I was gladdened and proud to see The President of the United States go into harms way and give some small cheer to America's Sons and Daughters who are demonstrative of America's best

There is a distinction between people and position ( I have the utmost respect for the Office of the President) and a difference between the Warriors and the war ( they did not make policey only carry out thier duty). I hope they all return home safely and quickly to thier famileys.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Quite contrary: He came in like a thief at night, stayed at the airport for a few hours and snuck out again. You don't think that's how the Iraquis will view it? "Some safe country THAT guy has provided us..."


I think that he went there to encourage the USA soldiers and not to persuade the Iraquis about the benefits of the americanization. I read in the morning that his main concern was not to put in risk soldiers and civilians with his visit.

Also, have in mind that a USA President must be careful of his life. He has an obligation towards his nation and to the world as well since USA is the leading power now whether we like it or not! I don't wish even to think what would happen to the NYSE if something happened to him... Don't you agree that every American President doesn't exactly own his life?

I happen to share the opinion most Iraquis have about the presence of USA Army in Iraq. It's an occupation. I am not a fan of President's policy but I was impressed by this visit. It was a very well performed trick of PR and I admire it as such.

[Clancie]

Posted by Hammegk

If you look, maybe you can find a democracy rather than a democratic republic to live in, vote in, and complain about.
Thank you for the suggestion, Hammegk, but I'm quite happy here. :)

I'm especially pleased to live in one of the nations where political dissent by citiizens is, in principle, still valued and respected....

[tamiO]

As much as I despise the man, I have to say it was a great idea. I bet the troops were thrilled! If I had seen the footage on TV, I might have shed a tear. I get emotional like that. As to how brave he was, I don't know; but he did show courage.

I imagine it had to be done with the strictest security. Blair went out to a school and paraded about in broad daylight? How stupid of him. What good would it have done if Blair had been assasinated?

It happens to be great campaign fodder for Republicans in general and the Bush campaign specifically. This may have been a motivating factor. Whatever the motivation, it was good for military morale for him to share Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq.

Now, if he would just pay for the damages to the Queen's gardens that he was responsible for and apologise to Her Majesty, I would be impressed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that he went there to encourage the USA soldiers and not to persuade the Iraquis about the benefits of the americanization.

I didn't say anything about americanization. I said "safe". :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I read in the morning that his main concern was not to put in risk soldiers and civilians with his visit.

Ah.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, have in mind that a USA President must be careful of his life. He has an obligation towards his nation and to the world as well since USA is the leading power now whether we like it or not! I don't wish even to think what would happen to the NYSE if something happened to him... Don't you agree that every American President doesn't exactly own his life?

Well, apart from the fact that I don't wish for US Presidents to be killed or even hurt (well, Nixon...perhaps...a bit... :)), I think you are forgetting something: The Prez is not his country. He is the leader of a country, and as such a pretty important person (Danish understatement). But his life is not necessary for the US to exist. LBJ was sworn in right after JFK was killed, in order to secure that government went on. When Reagan was shot, there was no civil unrest and upheaval. Society simply went on functioning.

Offing the POTUS will have severe consequences, but should not matter when it comes to maintaining society. If a country relies on the health of one man, then you are in trouble.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I happen to share the opinion most Iraquis have about the presence of USA Army in Iraq. It's an occupation. I am not a fan of President's policy but I was impressed by this visit. It was a very well performed trick of PR and I admire it as such.

Indeed.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Clancie
And...just a reminder....I won't bring up Florida (again) but Bush did not have the support of the majority of voters last time, either....

What do you mean by "either"? He certainly has the support of the majority of Americans now. And as a reminder, majority of voters is irrelevant, it is the majority of electoral votes that decides our elections.

[Ed]

The reason he went, which is incredibly obvious, was to blunt another news story. He was so successful that no one thought of it

Page 1,000,000 of the NYT

"Senator Clinton, in Afghanistan, Calls for More Foreign Troops"

Suck hind teat, Hil.:D

[Ed]

Originally posted by BTox


What do you mean by "either"? He certainly has the support of the majority of Americans now. And as a reminder, majority of voters is irrelevant, it is the majority of electoral votes that decides our elections.


Most places the Electors must legally follow the popular vote

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
Most places the Electors must legally follow the popular vote
I thought it was entirely up to the electorates. Is there a list somewhere where we can see who has to follow the popular vote?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Ed


Most places the Electors must legally follow the popular vote

True, which is what happened.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I thought it was entirely up to the electorates. Is there a list somewhere where we can see who has to follow the popular vote?

No Legal Requirement. Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA - 8 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 13 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 22 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 12 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 33 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 23 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 32 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#wrongvote

The rest have some legal or other obligation. Since when you vote you vote for an elector and those electors tend to be party stalwarts, it risk of abuse is small, but present.

It is a silly system that was designed to balence the voice of small states against the bigger ones. Personally, I have never understood the reasoning behind it. Before anyone explains at great length, I really don't care and an explination would not make it less silly.

[Cleopatra]

Every discussion about Middle East ends with nice people exchanging maps with Unique who is a professional in Israel bashing.

Every discussion about Bush administration ends in a discussion about the votes of Florida.

I think that somebody has cursed the Politics Forum. :D

[VicDaring]

At the risk of hijacking this thread back on topic...

As Ed mentioned briefly a bit earlier...

Hillary in Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031128/en_afp/iraq_us_clinton_031128175248)

Seems she spent Thanksgiving with troops in Afghanistan. Then the schedule calls for Friday in Baghdad, meeting with US troops, Iraqi leaders, etc. and then Saturday elsewhere in Iraq.

Any right-wingers still wanna go on and on about W's "courage"?

[demon]

After the defences of Mr Bush I`ve read here, I changed my mind and so should the rest of you sceptics.
He weally weally is so bwave!

[BTox]

Originally posted by VicDaring
At the risk of hijacking this thread back on topic...

Seems she spent Thanksgiving with troops in Afghanistan. Then the schedule calls for Friday in Baghdad, meeting with US troops, Iraqi leaders, etc. and then Saturday elsewhere in Iraq.

Any right-wingers still wanna go on and on about W's "courage"?

Wow, Hillary is really brave. She'd be in more danger from the U.S. military than any terrorists in Iraq.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by BTox
Wow, Hillary is really brave. She'd be in more danger from the U.S. military than any terrorists in Iraq. Oh, really. Aside from the punkish nature of such an asinine comment, you're basically asserting that various US soldiers would engage in cowardly (not to mention ungentlemanly) and thoroughly un-American behavior towards an elected representative of their fellow citizens. You might consider apologizing.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
You might consider apologizing.

No, maam.

[DanishDynamite]

Although Bush is not my cup of tea (by a long shot) I think this stunt did require a bit of courage. Sure, it was a PR coup, but it was an unneccesary coup. According to statements from the troops who saw Bush, it was a morale booster. In this regard, my hat is off.

When he's back on American soil (which has already happened) he'll take up where he left off.

[Dorian Gray]

You guys are missing the opportunity to discuss the obvious conservative media bias. Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Afghanistan during the same time Bush visited Iraq, but do we get heavy coverage of it? NO!

Those conservatives are greeding everything up and trying to push America back to the 1800s.

/sarcasm off

[Skeptic]

You guys are missing the opportunity to discuss the obvious conservative media bias. Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Afghanistan during the same time Bush visited Iraq, but do we get heavy coverage of it? NO!

That might have something to do with the fact that he's the president, while she's only a senator.

[Tony]

Why was Hillary visiting the troops? Shouldnt a person like her be having thanksgiving with the terrorists?

[Ziggurat]

I don't think courage (that is, whether it was a display of courage or not) is the central feature of this visit. And I don't think it was done simply as a vote-getter back here in the US (although it is also that). I think Bush's visit is about two things: encouraging the troops, and sending a message to the world that Bush is committed to Iraq. Bravery is rather beside the point. Presidents do not, AND SHOULD NOT, assume personal risk. That's not what the position calls for. This wasn't a demonstration of bravery, it was a demonstration of commitment.

And I ALSO think it was a good thing for Hillary to visit the troops. Who woulda thought someone could like BOTH Hillary and GW for doing similar things.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I thought it was entirely up to the electorates. Is there a list somewhere where we can see who has to follow the popular vote?

Oh, BTW;

If Mr. Gore could have carried his own home state of Tennessee, then there would have been no need to win Florida. The fact is, even presidential candidates that were soundly beaten such as Walter Mondale, or Mr. Dukakis at least DID win their home states.

Personally, I do not trust a candidate who is so disliked by his own constituents. These are the people who knew him best. Tennessee should have been Internet Al's power base...instead they were voting against him.

Call Bush the (s)elected president if you like, truth is he won his home state easily, and every newspaper and interest group that went down there after the fact and re-counted the Fla vote ALL agreed that Bush won every type of re-count that could be thought of. Yes, pregnant chads and all. :rolleyes:

I doubt that Dean, etc...will give Bush much trouble in the next election....but I'll give him this; I bet he'll win his home state at least! :D

-z

[pupdog]

I think it very likely that most of the troops appreciated Bush's visit; after all, Bob Hope is dead. Unfortunately, I spent the weekend where the Bush Television Network (aka Fox) plays most of the time, and that bit of news was replayed and replayed and replayed...and when we get closer to the election, it will be replayed some more. But notice--Bush is no dummy, he can learn--this time, there was no "Mission accomplished" banner hanging on the wall.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by BTox
No, maam. So, willfully belligerant as well as un-American? What a surprise.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Tony
Why was Hillary visiting the troops? Shouldnt a person like her be having thanksgiving with the terrorists? Oh? What exactly is a person "like her" like?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed
The reason he went, which is incredibly obvious, was to blunt another news story. He was so successful that no one thought of it

Page 1,000,000 of the NYT

"Senator Clinton, in Afghanistan, Calls for More Foreign Troops"

Suck hind teat, Hil.:D

We have a wiiiiiiiinner! (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/28/21835/675) (according to the blog, anyway)

She also acknowledged that the missile attack earlier this month on a German DHL cargo plane had almost caused the White House to scrap Bush's visit, which was planned for weeks starting in mid-October...

Rice also denied that the White House -- which is famed for its attention to political detail -- made the trip to bolster Bush's chances to win a second term in November 2004.

"This originated out of the president and the policy side," said Rice, who stopped short of saying that political adviser Karl Rove did not know about the trip.

Bush's visit overshadowed a similar one a day later by Senator Hillary Clinton. A source familiar with the planning of her visit said the administration was informed in late September that she would go.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Oh? What exactly is a person "like her" like?

Tony's just trying to bait you. Don't rise to it. He's a softy when you get to know him. ;)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
If Mr. Gore could have carried his own home state of Tennessee, then there would have been no need to win Florida.Irrelevant.The fact is, even presidential candidates that were soundly beaten such as Walter Mondale, or Mr. Dukakis at least DID win their home states.Aside from the fact that Mr. Gore was not "soundly beaten"...Personally, I do not trust a candidate who is so disliked by his own constituents. These are the people who knew him best.I'm not familiar with the dynamics of Tennessee politics or how the Vice President fared there in 2000. Nevertheless, I'm going to guess that yours is a bias in search of a justification.Tennessee should have been Internet Al's power base...instead they were voting against him.Again with the "Internet?" Is there something pathological at work in the right wing?Call Bush the (s)elected president if you like, truth is he won his home state easily...Irrelevant again....and every newspaper and interest group that went down there after the fact and re-counted the Fla vote ALL agreed that Bush won every type of re-count that could be thought of. Yes, pregnant chads and all. :rolleyes:You are in error. I doubt that Dean, etc...will give Bush much trouble in the next election....but I'll give him this; I bet he'll win his home state at least! :DMore "home state" fun 'n games. And as far as whether the Democratic candidate will take his state or not, it's too early to tell, wouldn't you say? Especially considering the Republican National Committee and talk radio have yet to ramp up the lies, distortions and out-of-thin-air inventions as were so successful against Mr. Gore last time around.

[rikzilla]

Reggie,

I'll let your post stand without further comment. Your replies to the points I brought up are a self parody that I could never hope to exceed.

Like John Muhammed acting as his own lawyer, you are your own worst enemy...and you don't even have sense enough to know it.

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Reggie,

I'll let your post stand without further comment. Your replies to the points I brought up are a self parody that I could never hope to exceed.

Like John Muhammed acting as his own lawyer, you are your own worst enemy...and you don't even have sense enough to know it.

-z

Read: I don't have a decent counter-argument.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Read: I don't have a decent counter-argument.

Nah. Read: why bother? Some tasks are hopeless.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
So, willfully belligerant as well as un-American? What a surprise.

:D you're funny. A cartoon was a good choice for your avatar!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Oh? What exactly is a person "like her" like?

A fascistic america hater.

[specious_reasons]

Ugh - I hate posting to a topic that's 3 pages deep, but I don't feel the need to create a new topic. Oh well.

When I first heard the news, a couple of things came to mind:

- This is important enough to interrupt the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade?
- What a great bit of PR.
- I'll bet the troops really appreciated this.

I don't consider his visit "courageous", but there had to be a small amount of risk involved.

While his trip was definitely PR, it was definitely very courteous. This event didn't improve my opinion of Bush as President, but I do consider what he did a good thing.

[wert]

Yep, Mr. Bush really loves the military.

From Reuters

The Democrats said 200,000 lower-income military families were left out of the child tax credit approved earlier this year "so that Bush could give a tax cut to the wealthy."

"President Bush cut access to health care benefits for 160,000 middle-income veterans and proposed closing seven VA hospitals in New York, Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Texas," it added.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Reggie,

I'll let your post stand without further comment. Your replies to the points I brought up are a self parody that I could never hope to exceed.

Like John Muhammed acting as his own lawyer, you are your own worst enemy...and you don't even have sense enough to know it. Most interesting. Rather than attempt to defend your hummingbird-feather-weight assertions, you choose instead to mock my brief analysis with a dollop of condescension, topped off with the delightful Triple-Lindy-pièce-de-résistance attempt to cast me in a mold akin to a (now) convicted murderer. Bra-vo!

And evasion noted.

- - -

Please, let's have more thoughtful, considered musings from the likes of the right's BTox, American, Tony, et al. Even the JREF needs the funny pages.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I'm not going to argue whether Bush was right or wrong, brave or cowardly in his trip to Iraq. I will say it was obviously for PR, but it did have a great added benefit of increasing troop moral.

I will weigh in on the Gore/Tennessee issue.

Gore could never take the electorate in Tennessee, nor can poretty much any Democrat.

I live in the state and I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of the people I run into think Bush is too liberal.

I think its more likely that sertain states would cede from the union before they vote for a Democrat and other states would do the same before voting Republican. It's the more neutral states one would have to win in order to become president.

[peptoabysmal]

Here's a link to other presidents who have visited war zones:
http://hnn.us/articles/1827.html

Traditionally, a visit from the president has been a tremendous morale booster to troops. Say what you want about LBJ, but he visited Vietnam several times. Looks like the Bush Thanskgiving visit to a war zone might be becoming a Bush family tradition?

No one mentioned Hillary Clinton's courageous visit to Baghdad, either. Or, maybe she is too well liked by Al Queda to be anyone's target. :p Wasn't her visit every bit as politically motivated? Where is the outrage for Hillary's visit?

What really cracks me up about Hillary's visit is that she is complaining that we need more international forces in Iraq. Let's see now, in November there were about 26 non-US troops killed in Iraq. Not enough foreign blood, Hillary?

Hillary also says:
"I believe we need more troops," she said. "I don't think we have an adequate number of troops to do what needs to be done."
Link (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1103/28clinton.html)


Funniest bit about that quote is that she should know, since her hubby reduced the US military by approximately ½ or 1/2 for you non-Unicode browsers.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Pepto, I agree, Hillary's visit was equally as politically motivated. I won't argue that. The reason I spoke only about Bush was the fact that Bush is the topic of the thread.

Anyone who thinks a politician (ANY politician) visiting a war-zone is not politically motivated, isn't paying attention. That's my only point when talking about Bush in Iraq (and yes, hillary, too.)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Pepto, I agree, Hillary's visit was equally as politically motivated. I won't argue that. The reason I spoke only about Bush was the fact that Bush is the topic of the thread.

Anyone who thinks a politician (ANY politician) visiting a war-zone is not politically motivated, isn't paying attention. That's my only point when talking about Bush in Iraq (and yes, hillary, too.)

The difference is that Bush's visit may have done some bit of good to the military morale. A military which is getting tired and in need of some troop rotations. Do you think Hillary's visit had the same effect, or perhaps the opposite effect?

<personal rant>
I am getting a little of tired of hearing people say "I don't support the war, but I support our troops", which is a meaningless, cowardly and transparent thing to say. You might as well say, "I support our troops, so long as the cost of a latte doesn't go up".
</personal rant>

[Some Friggin Guy]

<personal rant> I disagree with your rant, Pepto. It is absolutly possible to support the troops while disapproving of what they are having to do. These kids (and they are kids for the most part) did intend to sign on for a war and they are handling the situation very well. You are correct that they are tired and in need of a rotation, but that doesn't seem to be coming, yet they still seem to be doing pretty well. So, I for one, support them. However, I think that they are doing a job that was not handled well by their bosses. To me, supporting the troops without supporting the war is the same as saying you support the employees of Microsoft for their intelligence, but think Bill Gates is a slime-bag.</personal rant>

[DialecticMaterialist]

If Mr. Gore could have carried his own home state of Tennessee, then there would have been no need to win Florida. The fact is, even presidential candidates that were soundly beaten such as Walter Mondale, or Mr. Dukakis at least DID win their home states.


Well Gore DID win the popular vote and barely lost the electoral. It's not like he lost by a landslide; more like a hair, something I think the right should keep in mind.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
- - -

Please, let's have more thoughtful, considered musings from the likes of the right's BTox, American, Tony, et al. Even the JREF needs the funny pages.

Sheesh, Mr. Peabrain, even your attempts at digs are unoriginal!

[BTox]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Well Gore DID win the popular vote and barely lost the electoral. It's not like he lost by a landslide; more like a hair, something I think the right should keep in mind.

What's to keep in mind? Is Gore running in 2004? Didn't think so.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
<personal rant> I disagree with your rant, Pepto. It is absolutly possible to support the troops while disapproving of what they are having to do. These kids (and they are kids for the most part) did intend to sign on for a war and they are handling the situation very well. You are correct that they are tired and in need of a rotation, but that doesn't seem to be coming, yet they still seem to be doing pretty well. So, I for one, support them. However, I think that they are doing a job that was not handled well by their bosses. To me, supporting the troops without supporting the war is the same as saying you support the employees of Microsoft for their intelligence, but think Bill Gates is a slime-bag.</personal rant>

Why do you hate Bill Gates? Is it because he is pro-choice or because he gives millions to charities or just that he’s rich beyond belief? You don’t like his products? Feel free to switch to Linux and get all the free crappy software you could ever want.

Let me put it to you this way: If you are a dentist and someone says to you that they don't believe in dental hygiene, but they support your work, how much weight does that bit of empathetic fodder have?

How many of the coalition troops do you think believe in their hearts that the war they are fighting is for the wrong reasons?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by BTox


What's to keep in mind? Is Gore running in 2004? Didn't think so.


No, Gore's not but the Democrats are. ;)