some views from around the world, courtesy of the Washington Post Britain's Times newspaper hailed Bush's trip as "one of the most daring stunts in modern American history." "Probably not since the American Civil War, when battles raged only a few miles from Washington, has the incumbent of the White House deliberately placed himself in so much danger," the newspaper's diplomatic editor wrote. "Election raid on Baghdad," declared a front-page headline in France's Left-wing newspaper Liberation, beside a photograph of Bush carrying a platter laden with roast turkey. "This 'Baghdad coup', primarily intended for the U.S. public, was a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of election propaganda," the newspaper said. But opinions on the trip differed in other sections of the press, with Britain's tabloid Daily Mirror newspaper and The Independent both running a similar photograph of Bush holding a platter with the headline: "The Turkey has landed."
I agree. Bush is no friend of those in the military based on his actions. But when he does do something positive, I don't mind recognizing it. I just think we should point out what he does that's wrong, like not supporting military veterans, education for service member's children etc. But I also think it's ok to support a good gesture.
1. Tikrit is a far more dangerous area, and Clinton did go to a similar area in Kosovo. Johnson was in the middle of a country ripped apart by civil war, and foreign troops. 2. I don't think Hilary is sad one bit that she went to boost the morale of the soldiers in Afghanistan. It's ashame that the Bush administration isn't doing more in AFghanistan(not on Thanksgiving but in general.) 3. I applaude Bush for this move, but there is plenty more to criticize besides his bravado. Timing mentioned some of those things. The fact that Bush talks the talk about supporting our troops but doesn't walk the walk. Look at what Bush is doing regarding schooling for the family of servicemen and women. Look at what Bush has done regarding veterans benefits.
(see what I mean? Second guessing, belittling, ungrateful You mean like... <I>(But to the heart of the conflict? Nope. Baghdad is definitely the epicenter of conflict in Iraq. CLinton went to a fringe base. ) ... (to a southern, well secured by 100+ miles, location - Not like he went to Saigon). </I> It's funny how you mock people for belittling what Bush did while simultaneously belittling what Clinton and LBJ did. Gives you lots of credibility.
But it's Bush we're talking about Major. You can never second guess what he does because he does everything out of the good of his heart. When left-leaning people do this, it's for PR gain and they only go where they know it's safe. All kidding aside, good for Bush. While I'm not sure it's the wisest decision, I don't think he did this for anything other than wanting to show support for our troops. Anything to help the morale of our men and women who are fighting for our country is a good thing. That goes for both sides. Too bad some of you (on the right and the left) can't see that.
I think Bush did a good thing, he boosted the morale of the troops and they needed a morale boost. Is it a photo op? Yeah, but how can it not be? It would be nice if he doesn't have a campaign commercial centered around this, but what can you do? I still question this military reduction stuff. I mean, the man came into office in 2001 and I'm sure his budget didn't take until a little later. Can people honestly think that the military was weak and now is strong? What's changed since Clinton's time and now, the bunker busters.
Despite unprecedented precautions, the president slipped into Baghdad under cover of darkness on Thursday to minimize the risk of being targeted by surface-to-air missiles and was confined to the heavily guarded airport throughout his 2-1/2-hour stay. One day after the president left Iraq, another high-profile visitor, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, toured Baghdad to meet with troops and top officials from the occupation administration and aid groups. Aides Prodded Reluctant Bush on Iraq Trip By Adam Entous CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?" With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising. But the trip -- one of the most secretive by any U.S. president -- also highlighted how precarious security remains in the Iraqi capital, captured by U.S. forces in April. Despite unprecedented precautions, the president slipped into Baghdad under cover of darkness on Thursday to minimize the risk of being targeted by surface-to-air missiles and was confined to the heavily guarded airport throughout his 2-1/2-hour stay. "Obviously there continues to be a security problem in the triangle around Baghdad," Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in Crawford. One day after the president left Iraq, another high-profile visitor, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, toured Baghdad to meet with troops and top officials from the occupation administration and aid groups. It was White House chief of staff Andrew Card who first proposed the surprise trip -- not the president. "Andy (Card), as he often does, said (to Bush) almost in passing: 'Thanksgiving's coming up. Where do you want to go? You want to go to Baghdad?"' Rice recalled, and the planning got under way. Seven months after his dramatic landing in a flight suit on the USS Abraham Lincoln with its "Mission Accomplished" banner, Bush conceded about the Iraq visit, "I was the biggest skeptic of all." Instead of a flight suit, Bush wore a standard Army jacket to meet with the troops, and acknowledged he thought "all along" it might be too risky and that he "had a lot of questions" about security. Bush aides considered scrapping the visit less than a week ago after a DHL cargo plane, landing at the same airport, was hit by a surface-to-air missile. "The president had made clear that he was prepared to call this off at any time," Rice said, adding the DHL incident "made people go back and take a look at whether we thought the plane would be safe going in." The Secret Service was deeply involved in the planning from the start, although it expressed some initial reservations. The White House went to extraordinary lengths to keep the trip a secret, including outright deception. "Everybody was concerned that it was a trip with some risk. ... It wasn't going to Cleveland, we knew that." Rice said. 'ONE-DAY WINNER' More than 180 U.S. soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat operations over in May with his controversial visit to the aircraft carrier. He has seen his popularity decline as Americans' concern over the operation has grown. Experts said the visit could boost Bush in the polls, but doubted it would last. "Is this a moment that the RNC (Republican National Committee will try to use as a fund-raising moment? Yes. ... (But) it's a one-day winner. This is not a solution to anything," said Douglas Brinkley, director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans. Dan Feldman, a National Security Council director under former President Bill Clinton, called the trip a "great PR stunt ... yet another in a long line of photo ops that don't say anything concrete about improving security and what our long-term plans are." Rice denied the trip was politically motivated. "This was generated out of the president and the policy side," she said, but declined to say if political adviser Karl Rove or Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman were among the handful of aides who knew about the trip. She said the administration had briefly considered a visit to Baghdad during the summer or tagged on to Bush's recent London trip. Rice said the president was concerned about his own security as well as the possibility the visit would increase the risk to front-line troops. Before giving the final green light, he convened a meeting with his top advisers. "The (military) commanders still wanted this to go forward. And the president went around the room and just said, 'Do you still think this is the right thing to do?' And each of us thought it was the right thing to do," Rice said.
Was it politically motivated? Yes. Was he facing the same dangers as a US soldier or Iraqi civilian? No. Did they take as few chances as possible, essentially enough to say he'd been there, and then skedaddled? Yes. Have all kinds of other politicians been there, with much less praise, protection, or press? Yes. Was the security needed and time limitation contradictory to the portrayal of Iraq the White House routinely tries to sell, and admonishes the press for not selling also? Yes. Was it still, given the reality of the situation and the potential profile of the target, a ballsy thing to do? Yes.
Like who? This is the President of the US, he is a much bigger target than some no name Senator. Others you could have added: Are Democrats looking for a way to be upset? Yes. Is it necessary to always bring up negative stuff whenever Bush does anything? No.
This morning I was proud to be an American when I read that our leader courageously travelled all night to the world's most dangerous city to give a morale boost to our brave troops. That, my friends, is how a leader behaves. And to you sickening, sorry excuses for Americans (and/or those who chirp in from that 51st state to our north...), you are truly small people for looking for ways to turn this against W. It really must hurt you people to see our President uplifting the troops' morale and giving a great example of leadership.
Yes, okay...but did it raise the morale of the troops as much as a visit of THIS lady would have raised the morale...(and more)? Just kidding, it was a good move by Bush.
Do you also feel proud to be an American when hearing that a Senator and leader in congress, with even less security courageously travelled to the world's most dangerous city to give our troops a morale boost? She also behaved a like a leader with our brave troops in Afghanistan.
Man I feel sorry for you. Seriously. Here's a suggestion, though it'll doubtless be discarded; Read...then think...then re-read...think some more...THEN post a response.
I'm reporting this post to myself. Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to insult people in this manner. For all the posts you and bro TJ report, you need to practice what you preach.
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade in bold 1. Tikrit is a far more dangerous area, and your point? 6 to some, and a half dozen to others. and Clinton did go to a similar area in Kosovo. Not according to my relatives on that base at the time... they said it was like being in Belgium Johnson was in the middle of a country ripped apart by civil war, and foreign troops. And again... your point? My point is the quick discarding of the fact that the CURRENT president did something positive... ONLY TO BE "one upped" by the PAST -or- UNEQUALLED things... no way to compare them. Apples to Oranges, vice versa. And who wants to compare them? The Dems... just to discredit and say, "Weellll, looks look it this reeeeally, Bush didn't reeeally do anything special" - get real. What a great platform. The Discreditcrats are back in full force... but when did they ever slack off? 2. I don't think Hilary is sad one bit that she went to boost the morale of the soldiers in Afghanistan. It's ashame that the Bush administration isn't doing more in AFghanistan(not on Thanksgiving but in general.) but again, you've missed my point... her crew thought El Presidente would be just miles from Mexico, not just miles from Tikrit. She had visions of "name in the hat" dancin' in her head. Sure she's sad... no one gave her story anywhere near the play the El Presidente's got. Is it fair? Nope. And I'm not saying it wasn't a boost to troops' morale in general... but really, I doubt the troops were as excited there as they were in that room with The Chief. 3. I applaude Bush for this move, but there is plenty more to criticize besides his bravado. Really? Name five on your own... with back-up. And how can you applaud his move which=bravado, and critcise his bravado which=this move at the sane time? Wishy washers unite! Timing mentioned some of those things. Good for "Timing", but you picked me to pick apart, so I'm talkin' to you. The fact that Bush talks the talk about supporting our troops but doesn't walk the walk. Hold up. Fact?? I think being there in person is just as much, if not more as the President, "Walking the Walk" as any senator's trip would be... Look at what Bush is doing regarding schooling for the family of servicemen and women. Okay, let's look reeeeeeaally hard at it. Because I don't think you can support the fuzzed edges on the claims you're making. How about the support from the other side of the aisle in passing needed items through, before we lay sole responsibility on a the Big Guy. He has presided over this... which does not = his legacy. Look at what Bush has done regarding veterans benefits. And to that I'd say.. "ahem (clearing my throat) Correction, look at what he has presided over, and had to put up with while everything has stalled out due to an attack on us, then two responses." Remember he signs into law, and or vetos, what the congress as a whole puts on his desk. Sneaky addendums and undealt with issues may not be solely his blame... Aha! So let's reeeaally and truthfully look at it closely before we cast the first stone here. Not that Bush is without fault of his own, but the party over there must admit their own fault also. I mean hey, Bush is only the presiding leader during the only time in history that a lot of negative things have happened... but can you actually believe that 100% of them are his sole fault??? Every negative thing that's taken place since there weren't enough hangin' chads for a mandate in Gore's favor were NOT caused by, or even condoned by Bush. Get real. Are we now to believe that since my grandmother passed away this fall, and he was president, that he is responsible? Surely not. Yet the left makes everything negative BUSH's PRIVATE PROBLEM and TAKES AWAY everything POSITIVE by making out to be INSIGNIFICANT. Pathetic display of an understanding of checks, balances, and basic high school government class protocol. Blaming Bush for everything negative will not hold water with people that see the holes in your bucket.
IROC IT, hopefully nobody posts between your post and this one, because I didn't put your words in the post brackets, because it would have been a lot of work doing the editing. I wasn't calling this move by Bush Bravado. I was actually applauding it. I don't mind that it trumps Hilary's in press coverage. Because giving the heiarchy a President trumps a Senator. Does that mean that Hilary shouldn't receive an praise for going to Afghanistan and Iraq? Of course not. As far as walking the walk and talking the talk Bush fails. Do you think this visit for a few hours will compare to cutting to the schools on bases for those who serve in the military? Or will it serve for veterans who've had their benefits cut? Those are long term, Bush's visit is great but it's short term support, and in the long term Bush is still the person who was AWOL when it came time to show up for the duty he voluntarily enlisted for during war time, and he or the poeple put into position by him are responsible for PROPOSING the cuts in veterans benefits, and schools for the children of those who serve in the military. The articles on all of those things have been posted before. I'm not making up wild cliams. Fortunately at least some Bush's proposed cuts have been nullified by congress. As for your effort to assign Congress equal blame: First of all even if they were equally to blame that means that blame is till at the foot of the president. They aren't the ones who PROPOSED the cuts, they've reversed some of them regarding benefits. By your own logic you've blamed Clinton by saying that memebers of the military don't like him because he left the Military too weak. Why is it that in that case the President had sole control over what happened and in the case Bush cutting benefits for Veterans and Schools for the children of those who serve on military bases it was everyone else's fault who deserves the blame?
I liked the picture on the front page of the Chronicle, with Bush holding a silver tray with turkey and dressing. If I had been the serviceman standing next to him when he came out, I'd've said: "Hey look! A big turkey!" And off to Guantanamo I'd go. I give him credit for the PR move, but at the same time, it's all he does nowadays. Go to Iraq on Thanksgiving, get some nice propaganda pictures. This right after a carefully staged HOO-AH! speech in front of the troops. This after going to Britain and appearing with the Queen while 100,000-200,000 "commoners" staged a peaceful protest rally. Just once, let him show his face to someone who questions his b.s. But again, in his quest to legitimately win an election, Bush the Puppet Sock President played Rove's hand perfectly.
