Politics don't matter here -- Bush's Iraq visit was WAY overdue, and I'm glad he did the right thing. I applaud the move.
From the Left: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17283 A Chickenhawk Thanksgiving in Baghdad By David B. Livingstone, AlterNet November 28, 2003 Oh, what a Thanksgiving party it was. George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, flew into Baghdad International Airport under cover of darkness, accompanied only by his usual retinue of mainstream press syncophants, to spend two hours mouthing platitudes and getting his picture taken in the company of 600 hand-picked military personnel. As the only well-fed people in newly "liberated" Iraq tucked into their turkey and dressing, Bush treated the assemblage to a soundbite-friendly speech rich in flag-waving rhetoric and practical vagaries. Speaking in short, broad generalities, Bush told the soldiers, "You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq so we don't have to face them in our own country," and "You are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful." It is doubtful that Bush is perceptive enough to note the ironies implicit in both his presence and his pronouncements, though surely Karl Rove and his fellow cogs in the White House spin machine got a chuckle out of every nuance. While speaking for purposes of ostensibly expressing gratitude – isn't that what the holiday is all about in the first place? – Bush's words served instead both to perpetuate illusions and to inculcate fear. The President's repetitive mantra of "terror," "danger," freedom" and the like – the familiar buzzwords guaranteed to fulment unreasoning emotions in the hearts of all good Fox-viewing Americans – seemingly found its origins on Madison Avenue rather than Pennsylvania Avenue. Deftly baiting-and-switching the public's attention away from the 60 personnel slain over the course of the preceding month or the spiraling costs of a mission he had declared "accomplished" mere months before, Bush's underlying message to America seemed to be that the boogeyman was at the door, that danger still stalked the stars and stripes, and that only continued neo-colonialism could protect our TVs, toasters and steel-belted radials from sinister terrorists. It was a propaganda coup of the first order, replete with adoring camera angles and wildly cheering multitudes, all conducted under a shroud of Stalinist press secrecy. Indeed, the administration and its media admirers seem to regard its very deceit of the public and the press a point of pride. Lost in the torrent of excited blither from small-screen news anchors and pundits was a fairly basic question: Why was the chief executive of the United States, an ostensibly democratic nation, skulking into Baghdad when we'd been told he was in Crawford, Texas? Why were we lied to? "For security," of course. Sure, the mortars drop on Baghdad International with unerring frequency, and even George W. would rather not be blown to bits. Understandable enough. Of course, some of us might wonder how it came to be that an American President might have the unmitigated gall to embark on such a reckless, expensive, and tactically meaningless expedition for purposes of a blatant photo-op. An answer to such a question, if asked, would surely be slow in coming. Given the administration's success in framing public discourse (remember "you're either with us or against us" and Ari Fleischer's admonition to "watch what you say") serious questioning of any gesture, however meaningless, that purports to "support our troops" is pretty unlikely in the fawning U.S. media. Overseas, however, the reaction was less muted: "The Turkey Has Landed" was the sneering headline in London's Independent. The very nature of Thanksgiving is called into question by Bush's latest exercise in media-friendly self-aggrandizement. Who should be giving thanks to whom, and for what? Bush doesn't seem to have a firm handle on the answer. It seems worth noting that rather than junketing his cocoon over to an airplane hanger in Baghdad in order to mix up feel-good with fear along with a side of dressing, he could have spent his time and energy visiting the families of the soldiers who have died. Or, he could have stopped in at any given VA hospital, where he might have a word or two with the young men and women who had given arms, legs, eyes, ears, or other valuable body parts in service to Bush and Halliburton. Just as the Thanksgiving holiday itself was the unintentionally ironic creation of a group of colonialists whose descendents proceeded to virtually wipe out an entire indigenous population, Thanksgiving in Baghdad 2004 served as an unblinking and unthinking exercise in reactionary gall, undertaken by a president seemingly incapable of comprehending the real meaning of his actions. Thanks to his strategists and the whipped-cur behavior of his unquestioning news channel minions, we can expect to see at least a brief spike in Bush's popularity polls and some nice video snippets in next year's election ads. But important, if unasked, questions linger about a president who foregoes both taste and honesty in his advancement of his agenda – questions of integrity, character and ethics. They might be aptly summed up in a riposte posed to another Republican nearly five decades ago, Senator Joseph McCarthy, during his final days on Capitol Hill: "Finally, sir, have you no shame?"
Hmmmm.... ________ White House Version of Mid-Air Exchange Disputed 1 hour, 8 minutes ago Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - British Airways said on Monday that none of its pilots made contact with President Bush (news - web sites)'s plane during its secret flight to Baghdad, contradicting White House reports of a mid-air exchange that nearly prompted Bush to call off his trip. Honor Verrier, a spokeswoman for British Airways in North America, said two BA aircraft were in the area at the time and neither radioed the president's plane to ask if it was Air Force One. "We have spoken to the British Airways captains who were in the area at the time and neither made comments to Air Force One nor did they hear any other aircraft make the statement over the radio," Verrier said in response to a question from Reuters. The White House had no immediate comment on the discrepancy. Bush aides recounted with excitement last week the moment during the flight to Baghdad when they said a BA pilot thought he spotted the president's blue and white Boeing 747 from his cockpit. "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed, according to the White House. There was a pause. Then came the response from Air Force One: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft. As one of Bush's aides recounted, the BA pilot seemed to sense that he was in on a secret, and replied: "Oh." The exchange was one of the most suspenseful moments during Bush's secret flight to Baghdad, according to the White House. With three hours to go, Bush had the Secret Service (news - web sites) check if his mission was still secret. "They assured me that there was still a tight hold on the information, that conditions on the ground were as positive as positive could be," he said afterward.
Why must everything with this President have some sort of a strange/ sneaky twist? I'm starting to believe this was all a vast conspiracy so George and Hillary could have a secret tryst in Crawford. Hmmmmmm is right.
Maybe they just made the British Airways stuff up like that stuff about the extraordinary Clinton damage to the Whitehouse when they came in or those WMD in Iraq, or the no warning of airplane attacks or the one billion in AIDs money ( with strings attached that no one would agree to) , or winning the election or the soldiers being disenfranchised or being accepted in Iraq as liberators or choosing middle of the road federal jurists...
That is so great and I commend him for going out there and giving the moral support that is needed... I love GW, and I hope this act shows how much he is behind the U.S. and the troops...
During his 1952 campaign for president Dwight Eisenhower had famously declared, "I shall go to Korea." The statement gave Americans, tired of the war, hope that Ike could end it. In early December 1952, while he was president-elect, Ike made a surprise 3-day visit to South Korea. As Stephen Ambrose notes in his biography, "The trip was carried out in great secrecy--while Eisenhower was gone, daily bulletins were issued ... announcing Cabinet appointments and giving the impression that Eisenhower was busy making the selections." Ike met with combat troops and flew a reconnaissance mission. "He studied an artillery duel with his bionoculars, chatted with the troops, ate outdoor meals from a mess kit, and came to the conclusion that the situation was intolerable." _____________ I could see the eventual Dem nominee making a similar statement and backing it up in a similar way.
Big misunderstanding... The Brits didn't call Air Force One, they called the London Tower. Doh! ___________ Changing a Story on the Fly By Ken Fireman WASHINGTON BUREAU December 3, 2003 Washington - The White House has changed one aspect of its account of President George W. Bush's surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad: the spotting of Air Force One by a British Airways pilot. Initially, according to accounts by journalists on the trip, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the British pilot had radioed, "'Did I just see Air Force One?'" and that the pilot of Air Force One had replied, "'Gulfstream Five,'" a much smaller aircraft. Yesterday, after British Airways had denied that account, the White House said the radio conversation actually took place between the British pilot and the control tower in London. The tower's response was apparently based on false flight plan information given to protect the secrecy of the trip. The sighting of the presidential aircraft occurred just after daybreak Thursday off the western coast of England, the White House said. Bush has said he was prepared to scrub the trip if news of the journey had leaked. A British Airways spokesman told The Associated Press that none of its pilots has come forward to acknowledge either making or overhearing the purported conversation.
Here's a nice little tribute to GWB, the "Avenger of Bones," for his trip, from an Iraqi blogger: -- IN THE NAME OF GOD THE COMPASSIONATE; THE MERCIFUL Ahalan (= Kinsmen: it means you have come amongst kinsmen) Wa = and Sahlan (= Plateau or plain easy land: meaning you have trodden welcoming land) These are the traditional words of welcome in the Arabic language. Yes GWB, though the visit was brief, it was very meaningful. We know that you have come, not as the President of an invading nation, but as the friend who wishes to renew commitment to our people, and as long as your intentions are what you have repeatedly said (and we don't doubt your sincerity), the land and the hearts welcome you. It gives us pain that the visit is so short and that the masses cannot in the present circumstances come out to give you the welcome that you deserve, but the day will come, the day will come (God's Willing). Yes the day will come when the millions will come out to welcome the best friend that the Mesopotamian people have ever had, and he will be amongst the most devoted and allied people that America will ever have. The bones in the mass graves salute you, Avenger of the Bones. Hail, Friend and Ally, Hail, Sheikh of Sheikhs, GWB; Descendant of the Noble Ancient Celt. Alaa
This may be the most ridiculous bit of pro-Bush propaganda (yes this is propaganda) you have ever posted ---- complete nonsense. George “Avenger of the Bones” Bush
This blogger got a lot of airplay on conservative airwaves recently, along with a lot of other folk on the same web site. They only started blogging very recently. For some reporting with verifiable data, try this: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2003/0701/p25s01-woiq.html Q&A: Daily life in postwar Baghdad Scott Peterson is currently in Baghdad. He traveled extensively in Iraq and Iran before the Iraq war. Since the end of hostilities, he has reported on conditions there. When you talk to individual soldiers, what's their state of composure given the recent attacks on US and British troops? Are they getting edgy? There are a combination of things eating away at the minds of American troops, as they pull duty in the scalding Iraqi heat. The spate of attacks is certainly raising alert levels across the country, but most soldiers in Iraq have been here for months, played critical frontline rolls during the war, and so are coping with the new stress. There is another remarkable thing that you pick up when you speak to troops that have been here long-term. They are tired - the kind of psychological tired that accompanies taking part, surviving, and conquering in war, and capture of Baghdad - and then watching that euphoria dissipate as their go-home date has been extended time and time again. Many troops are now concerned about how they will cope when they return to the US, and are worried that their victory will be tarnished with the mismanagement of the post-war phase. As an occupation force, they are the only game in town, and are blamed for much that goes wrong. Does the average Iraqi on the street believe the US will pull out before a lasting democracy or an orderly government is established? The average Iraqi on the street remains unsure of US motives in his country. One officer told me today, about this mismatch of expectations, that most Iraqis believed that when the regime collapsed, the Americans would "drive up and park with the full American dream: a house, two-car garage, white picket fence and a dog." Instead, there is only one thing that Iraqis - nearly three months after the war - can point to as an improvement since the fall of Saddam Hussein: freedom of speech. Other than that, the litany of complaints is long, and that means the window of opportunity for the US to put together a credible interim government is swiftly closing. How easy is it for people in Baghdad to get food and basic necessities for cooking, cleaning, and healthcare? Chaos still reigns in terms of most public services. Electricity remains the most troublesome, as temperatures climb toward 120 degrees. Food is not as big a problem, but sporadic water, spotty power, and chronic insecurity means that few new jobs are being created. Lack of electricity has meant that some hospital emergency wards have had to shut their doors from time to time. Iraqis say repeatedly - and seem to believe - that the US chief administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer is "punishing" them for resistance to the US occupation, with the electricity cuts. The reality is that the weakness of the electrical grid, and sabotage, are thwarting efforts to put the system back together. Military engineers have met every day for more than a month to solve the problem - but Iraqis rarely believe that. How would you describe life in Baghdad now for an average Iraqi? In the daytime? After dark? Do US troops go on even higher alert after the sun goes down? Life in Iraq has been hard since the start of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, but many remember when everything "worked" in Iraq in the 1970s. So, Iraqis spend their days trying to get by. Insecurity has changed their way of living, though. Iraqis have told me that they can't go out and buy shoes anymore, unless they travel - for safety - as an entire family together. And few venture very far after dark. US troops certainly go on a higher alert after dark, but with their night-vision capability, they have many more advantages than those who want to wage guerrilla-style attacks against them. If an Iraqi wanted to travel to another Arab country, and had the means to, how difficult would that be? Iraqis still have their old passports, and if those haven't expired, they can still travel to many nations in the Middle East. Jordan to the west by road is the gateway, since the Baghdad airport remains closed to commercial traffic. But that road is riddled with bandits - journalists' late-model GMC vehicles seem to be the target of choice for thieving gunmen.
How have you determined it's propaganda instead of melodramatic prose or different culture? I.e., how can you be so certain it's not authentic?
I'm not sure why this should offend you so. only the most partisian of posters could begrudge a little credit redounding to Bush for liberating a nation that had been so brutally oppressed. Why should it disturb you that Iraqis could be grateful for finally, and for pehaps the first time in their history, having an opportunity to have a say in their own government, their own future.? As my signature suggests this is an enormously important thing we're attempting in Iraq, and it's success is critical not only to our own security but to the entire future of the middle east. The fact that we invaded iraq primarily for other reasons in no way diminishes the importance of creating a stable democratic state in the Ba'athists place. For those of you who would wish our faliure because it could mean the defeat of Bush in the coming election, i would say that's not merely unpatriotic, but inhumane.
The bird thing is no big deal, but the plane thing is a bit disturbing, as is the admission that the staff creates fake events. I think the visit a good thing, but why screw it up with petty stuff like this? ___________ The Bird Was Perfect But Not For Dinner In Iraq Picture, Bush Is Holding the Centerpiece By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A33 President Bush's Baghdad turkey was for looking, not for eating. In the most widely published image from his Thanksgiving day trip to Baghdad, the beaming president is wearing an Army workout jacket and surrounded by soldiers as he cradles a huge platter laden with a golden-brown turkey. The bird is so perfect it looks as if it came from a food magazine, with bunches of grapes and other trimmings completing a Norman Rockwell image that evokes bounty and security in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. But as a small sign of the many ways the White House maximized the impact of the 21/2-hour stop at the Baghdad airport, administration officials said yesterday that Bush picked up a decoration, not a serving plate. Officials said they did not know the turkey would be there or that Bush would pick it up. A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a standard feature of holiday chow lines. The scene, which lasted just a few seconds, was not visible to a reporter who was there but was recorded by a pool photographer and described by officials yesterday in response to questions raised in Washington. Bush's standing rose in a poll conducted immediately after the trip. Administration officials said the presidential stop provided a morale boost that troops in Iraq are still talking about, and helped reassure Iraqis about U.S. intentions. Nevertheless, the foray has opened new credibility questions for a White House that has dealt with issues as small as who placed the "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the aircraft carrier Bush used to proclaim the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and as major as assertions about Saddam Hussein's arsenal of unconventional weapons and his ability to threaten the United States. The White House has updated its account of an airborne conversation in which a British Airways pilot wondered into his radio if he had just seen Air Force One and was told that it was a Gulfstream 5, a much smaller plane. White House officials first said that the British Airways pilot had talked with the Air Force One pilot. Bush aides now say the conversation occurred between the British Airways pilot and an air traffic control worker. "I don't think everybody was clear on exactly how that conversation happened," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. British Airways said it has been unable to confirm the new version. "We've looked into it," a spokeswoman said from London. "It didn't happen." White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real. "This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him." The Democratic presidential candidates tipped their hats to the White House stage managers by refusing to criticize the trip, which dominated weekend newscasts. Aides to the Democrats said they concluded that the less said about the trip, the better. In the view of these aides, the trip produced reassuring images of a situation that has badly deteriorated, and Democrats just wanted the moment to pass so they could go back to criticizing Bush's postwar policy. A poll conducted four days after Thanksgiving by the National Annenberg Election Survey put Bush's job approval rating at 61 percent, up from 56 percent during the four days before the holiday. His job disapproval rating dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent. His personal popularity increased from 65 percent to 72 percent. The polls of 789 people before Thanksgiving and 847 people after Thanksgiving each had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The trip was pulled off in total secrecy -- only a few Bush aides and reporters knew about it in advance, and they were allowed to discuss it only on secure phone lines. Reporters covering the Thanksgiving program in Baghdad were not allowed to report the event until after Air Force One had left. Some of the reporters left behind at Crawford Middle School, where they work when Bush is staying at his Texas ranch, felt they had been deceived by White House accounts of what Bush would be doing on Thanksgiving. Correspondent Mark Knoller said Sunday on "CBS Evening News" that the misleading information and deception were understandable, but that he had been "filing radio reports that amounted to fiction." "Even as President Bush was addressing U.S. personnel in Baghdad, I was on the air saying he was at his ranch making holiday phone calls to American troops overseas," Knoller said. "I got that information from a White House official that very morning."
Help me out here, Wiz...I am a "troop" (USAF), and I'm not aware of any cut in benefits. We're getting an average of a 5% pay raise increase in January - more would be nice certainly, but it's not a cut. No doubt that senior citizens as a voting bloc show up to the polls in groves, but don't underestimate the number of GIs who do vote...just ask the Al Gore 2000 campaign team - they tried very hard to disallow our absentee ballots from overseas over postmark technicalities.
George W. Bush: Master of Illusion by Gene Lyons If the Bush administration can't get anything else right, they definitely know how to stage a photo op. George W. Bush's surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops at Baghdad airport was as cleverly contrived a piece of political theater as White House imagineers have dreamed up since since his "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing back in May. It's likely to have exactly the same effect. But let's hold that thought for a moment. For me, the president's well-choreographed stunt served as a quick Rorschach test. Was I, or was I not, a Bush-hater? See, for months now, right-thinking pundits who respond to the Republican National Committee's party line have been wringing their hands over a supposed epidemic of unreasoning hatred shown Bush by his detractors. Ironically, the first to advance the theme was Byron York, a columnist who got his start writing for, get this, The American Spectator --home of the infamous "Arkansas Project," a $2.4 million project to defame President Clinton funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the Scrooge McDuck of the American right. To my knowledge, York played no role in the secretive scheme, but the idea of any Spectator alum playing Miss Manners is pretty funny. "Remember 'The Clinton Chronicles,'" York asked "the 1994 video that attempted to implicate Bill Clinton in all sorts of 'unsolved' deaths? Remember the 'Clinton Body Count' lists? Remember the stories of the president's connections to drug running?" Sure do. In fact, I remember American Spectator articles devoted to the preposterous idea that Bill Clinton ran a cocaine-smuggling ring through a rural airport in Mena, Arkansas. I also recall "Arkansas Project" operatives making clumsy efforts to investigate the private lives of journalists deemed "Clinton apologists." I don't recall York or many "mainstream" pundits getting too upset about it either. But I digress. York's article proved that if you scour the internet, it's possible to locate sites like Bushbodycount.com or Presidentmoron.com devoted to denouncing President Bush as everything up to and including a Nazi. But, hey, no kidding. One of the ironies of contemporary life is the huge boost given irrationality by the internet, satellite technology, etc. p*rnography aside, nothing travels faster through cyberspace than quackery. There are multiple sites for every kind of superstition: religious cults, alien visitations, anti-Semitism, Creationism, and conspiracy theories of every conceivable variety. That York could google up Bush-haters was no surprise. More remarkable was the number of mainstream pundits who took the bait. It was hardly shocking to see the Washington Post's George Will, who once called Bill Clinton a rapist on the thinnest possible evidence, join the chorus. Nor to observe Charles Krauthammer, once a practicing psychiatrist, allege that "Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush...that is near pathological." Their game is to label all criticism of our court-appointed leader crazy. When New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof joined the chorus, however, Bob Somerby of dailyhowler.com brought him up short. Conceding that it's "utterly hypocritical" for conservatives who savaged Clinton "to complain about liberal incivility," Kristoff had nevertheless detected disturbing anger in reader e-mails. "Liberals," he lamented "have now become as intemperate as conservatives." Somerby reminded Kristoff of a few home truths: "It wasn't everyday people, writing e-mails, who pushed those murder lists against Clinton. It was well-known public figures who peddled those lists, and they were invited to do so on national TV. Similarly, it wasn't a random bunch of e-mailers who kept trying to prove that Clinton killed [Vince] Foster. It was major Republicans--can you say 'Ken Starr?'--who engaged in this endless political p*rn. As they did so, 'good guy' pundits hid beneath desks, too scared to condemn their behavior. "Are today's liberals as bad as those cons? Unless you simply enjoy propaganda, the answer quite plainly is 'no.' Have you seen Bush murder lists on TV? Have you seen a major 'religious figure' [i.e. Jerry Falwell] selling tapes which call Bush a serial killer?...In short, have you seen anything like the wave of insanity that typified the Clinton-Gore years?" Anyway, back to Bush's Thanksgiving day appearance. What were my feelings? Immediately, exactly the kind of sentimental patriotic warmth the stunt was designed to evoke. As Molly Ivins and all my Austin friends say, George W. Bush is hard to dislike on a purely personal level. Next, mild irritation at the fawning of the TV talking-heads. OK, it was a nice gesture. But Lincoln, FDR, Churchill? Give me a break. Bush's late night airport visit took a lot of effort, but no particular courage--no more, at any rate, than did Hillary Clinton's daylight visit the next morning. After that, I felt chagrin that a retinue of hand-picked journalists would agree to secret participation in a transparently political stunt. Finally, realization that should events in Iraq continue to spiral sickeningly out of control, all the warm fuzzies in the world won't save Bush from the consequences of his ill-conceived policies.
