Bush in Baghdad
 

How awesome is this?
Bush in Baghdad

Bush flies into Baghdad at night to spend some Thanksgiving time with the troops.
Or he could be checking up on the oil situation:rolleyes:

Either way gotta love the rocks on this guy.

I am by no means a Bush supporter, but I have to admit that was a very classy move. Props to the CiC.

Bush is a true patriot.

Nice of him to drop by I agree.

But he is still a fucking moron.

What an insightful comment.

/sarcasm off

Of course he's a patriot. He's the President!

He also happens to be a clown, in my book.


But, as several people have said already, I think this was a surprising and commendable move. Nice for the troops there to get a Thanksgiving suprise... (even if it was only 600 of them).

Heh... Imagine how pissed off you'd be if you had decided to miss lunch that day!


Mr Mephisto

Truly a magnaminous gesture, like him or not, going to Baghdad on Thanksgiving is above and beyond what is usually expected of Commander in Chief. Hats off.

Dam, that's helluva stunt to pull of just to show up for the moral support of the troops in Iraq. Even Clinton or Bush Senior wouldn't have pulled this off...or did they? I get the feeling that this topic is gonna turn into paranoia discussion

Indeed, very classy pr move, especially with serving some of the troops their food. My hat is off to you Mr. President.

Evidently they didn't because, according to the reporter I watched, the last time this occurred was Nixon in Vietnam.

That may be the first thing he has ever done that I respect. I suspect it will probably be the last thing, though.

ABBA '04

Good PR work...

Who wants to bet Hilary thinks he did it just to overshadow her?

Really classy move by the president. You might not like the guy, but he really does CARE about people beyond them voting for him.

I think it was a great move by Bush, and I think his PR people are finally getting smart about not overpromoting. While he got a lot of mileage out of the story, it wasn't overscripted for the press like the aircraft carrier landing.

On the other hand, I see this as just another stop on Campaign 2004 for Bush.

Agree that it was an excellent move and one that I believe is completely sincere.

As far as Bush senior and Clinton, well Bush Sr went to Saudi Arabia right before the first gulf war and I seem to recall Clinton going somewhere as well. Certainly these are not quite equivalent to going to a full on combat zone. As pointed out, Nixon was the last Pres to do the same.

I wonder if he'll make a stop in Afghanistan.

A most sincere effort. He really seems to care for the troops. Kudos to GWB.

It was a great thing for a president to do.

I wish I could believe that it was sincere. Perhaps it was, but I don't trust any politician today to do anything without consulting their PR people. Following that aircraft carrier stunt, I especially can't extend such trust to Bush.

I thought it was funny that a british airways pilot recognized Air Force One flying to Iraq and almost busted him out over the radio.

He operates on a solid human level. This disarms those who oppose him on purely theoretical grounds. It is a direct way to approach life. This is his strength and his value to us all.

I generally have a distaste for Bush but I think it was great he went on this trip. I don't think it was in question that he is gung-ho about his troops.

The best "insiders" report of how the trip went down is at the Drudge Report - I thought that was excellent reading!

I love watching the video when he walks in on the troops... they were definately surprised!

It's amazing how those of you who live in other countries lambast our president - Guess it makes no difference what you think since he's our president and not yours. I'm very proud of George Bush, my president. What has yours done for you lately?

Kept us out of a quagmire. :)

I bet the approach angle into the airport was a steep one. I think he's got some balls. Good for him.

Kudos to Bush! He has shown more support for our troops in Iraq then our last president (whose name I refrain from mentioning, since he is an ASSHOLE) EVER showed for ANY of our military. I can't wait to see what's going to happen next term after he beats out those Dems!

last time i checked, the war was over. or major combat, whatever the difference is.

anyways, i think this was just a BS p.r. stunt for his upcoming re-election campaign, which we, the taxpayers, got to pay for. but i do think it was a good morale booster, and a nice, although insincere (imo) gesture.

so i think it's good he did it, but i think he probably did it for all the wrong reasons.

Yeah well according to you guys he can do no good. If you would get past your hatred for the man, you would actually see that he is a nice soft spoken man, who is truly grateful what the troops are doing for this country.

Have you read any stories about Karl Rove? Every move Bush makes is carefully planned and set up for maximum political gain. The Bush presidency is the most insincere presidency since, well, Clinton. Everything is done according to polls and planning.

But you're right, I see very, very, very little good in the Bush administration. But I'm not rich, so I wouldn't expect Bush to do anything that I approve of.

Legalize pot!

But seriously, just because he went to Iraq doesn't make him a hero. Those who he left behind are the heros

I think you are confusing this thread with the fark.com thread on the same subject :rolleyes:

I dont' think anyone used the 'Hero' tag here.

Just because I mentioned the word hero doesn't imply a connection between TFP and Fark.com.

Couldn't have said it better myself...so i'll quote you. :D

I think this was a Good Thing ™ for our troops, and it was certainly not something that every president would do. Kudos to Bush, but I'm still not going to vote for him. :P

Good for you being proud of him. I have no problem with that.

However, just as you can be proud of him, I retain the right to consider him an insecere, dangerous, unilateral, unintelligent, arrogant buffoon.

It's nothing against you personally. :)

And for the record, my President has no executive power. She is the titular head of State and her only real power lies in accepting the resignation of a Government that has lost the confidence of the Dail (our Parliament).

Mr Mephisto

Presidents have done it before, did it help their political agenda though? ie: getting re-elected.

Combat zone does not necessarily mean war. But anyway...

I have little doubt that he would have done the same thing if this were his second term.

GWB had the opportunity to go to a war zone in Vietnam, which he avoided by joining the ANG, which service he further avoided by going AWOL. I still think he has little shriveled raisins where his brass balls should be.

Edit- For what it's worth, when GWB was commissioned as an officer in the Air Guard, he swore an oath which, in my opinion, he had no intention of honoring. When I joined the army, when my friends joined the army, when my brother joined the army, we all swore the same oath.

I was on active duty during Panama, Grenada, and Iraq I. I was not required in combat zones because my MI MOS and languages weren't pertinent to those conflicts. However, I had friends that were Hispanic and Spanish linguists that went into Panamanian prisons, as prisoners, to get intel. Spending months in a South American prison to serve their country. THAT is brass balls.

GHWB had a huge pair. He flew into the hell of combat, got shot down, and survived. He upheld the oath he took. Every serviceman and woman who has taken that oath, and upheld that oath, deserves our respect. My brother and friends, your family and friends, that are serving in Iraq deserve our respect. Most of them have spent thousands of times more hours in a combat zone than the CIC has spent in ANY combat zone. And all to uphold the oath they took when they joined the service. The same oath that GWB took when he was commissioned, the oath that, in my opinion, he had no intention to honor.

GWB took a similar oath again when he became President and CIC. But when it comes right down to it, I don't believe that he would put his life on the line for this country, or it's citizens, or it's glorious constitution. Not any more than he did during Vietnam. He must have gone through cases of Depends during this daring and dangerous campaign trip to Baghdad. After all, we all know that those absentee votes CAN make all the difference.

Bush deserves some credit for the trip, but don't give him too much. This is the guy who ran away from his Guard duty, flew away from Washington D.C. on 9/11, and who only made it to Ground Zero after Bill Clinton beat him to the site. How much you wanna bet this trip got booked after Karl Rove found out Hillary was making her own trip to Iraq?

Well, let's see, there was a possible threat to the Pres and the first thing he should have done is get out of the crosshairs. To criticize him for that is ridiculous. I suppose you would have stood atop the White House, let a plane crash on you, and let the VP become Pres.

As far as him not going to ground zero immediately, that's also ridiculous. I'd prefer the Pres to be formulating strategies, getting an understanding of the scope of the threat, and implementing responses.

As far as the guard duty goes, that was how many years ago?

I believe it was 30 years ago.
What's the statute of limitations for desertion?

Which leads me to what would have been my original comment:
Good move.
30 years too late, but good move.

And in an election year - how convenient.

There is no statute of limitations for desertion, but the military loses its jurisdiction when the individual is discharged, as Bush was.

According to http://www.buzzflash.com/mailbag/2002/10/29.html

Questions still remain, of course. Why did the military let him skip town without punishment? Why are those who criticized Clinton for draft-dodging so willing to defend Bush?

Questions for another thread -- perhaps one that already exists.

It is unfortunate, but there are certain excellent human qualities that George W. Bush and, more importantly, Carl Rove know exactly how to take advantage of.

Let's take honor, for instance. If you're truly honorable, then, in the absence of very ironclad evidence that the man is a truth impaired moral cripple with delusions of adequacy, you have to believe him when he says, under oath, that he has the welfare of the country in mind and not some globally hegemonic domination fantasy dreampt up at the <strike>Legion of Doom</strike> PNADC. Doesn't necessarily mean that the total accumulation of little bits of evidence won't eventually sway you, and cause you to doubt some and then all of what the man says, but it does mean that it'll take you longer.

Fortunately, I am willing to condemn a politician of any party on circumstantial evidence. The way things are now, they already come to power with a heavy load of guilt. This one, in particular, seems every bit as corrput as a 1980s tinpot Latin American dictator, and every bit as honest as a $3 bill. He looks remarkably like a preemptive strike from the obscenely wealthy in the class war, such as it is. If only in a "Methinks the lady doth protest overmuch" sort of a way.

And, of course, I have raw hatred on my side, so if you don't have the capacity for that, you might feel bad about feeling good every time he makes an obvious screwup or not feeling good when he does an exquisite PR job like this. But that's what it takes to generate the kind of emotion it is going to take to remove this stain on the oval office carpet back to Texas where he belongs: all the time, not just 4 months out of the year.

yeah, and what, prb, if that's the case - do you think Hillary was planning on doing there?

Perhaps out a line, but i don't care....I should have cared because it got me edited and warned for insulting another member

Ummm I know its been said, but I'm still in awe you even posted it.

You do know that its a 'good thing' for the president to be protected? I'd have been rather pissed if I found out he stayed in a target area. Also this might shock you but Billy isn't the president anymore. He doesn't have important things to do. I'd much rather my president be working on finding out what exactly happened then going for a photo-op in a time of extreme crisis. If I remember the rescue workers reaction to him, they were very happy to see him when he showed up, unlike say Hillary who was booed on stage :lol:

Hooah.

Clinton went to Kosovo Christmas of 99. George I went to either Saudi or Kuwait Christmas of 91. So definitely not unprecedented. In fact, I would have been surprised if George II hadn't gone.

Honorably Discharged by the way. :)

Bush didn't really skip town, he informed his direct superiors who approved his leave (to go help a family friend campaign), but was later denied by higher ups. Course this was later on, and he did return to finish his service.

This subject isn't brought up very often, probably because everytime a liberal does about 90 conservatives remind them their hero Mr. Clinton just flat out ran to Canada.

As far as i am aware, Clinton never ran to Canada.

He was against the Vietnam War (so were a lot of people) and spoke out against it while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford (no small feat, like to see Duhh-ba-you be able to say that.)

A letter from a Col. on slick willies draft board,

As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5551) 7/30/93
September 7, 1992. Memorandum for Record:
Subject: Bill Clinton and the University of Arkansas ROTC Program:
There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton's involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas. Prior to this time I have not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of participation in the Bataan Death March and the subsequent three and a half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement. However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has stated, that there were many others who avoided serving their country in the Vietnam war, they are not aspiring to be the President of the United States.
The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton's evasion of the draft. This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft,
"Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make". Since I may be the only person living who can give a first hand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love for my country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.
Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not
have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.
The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton's draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright's office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright's office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC
program at the University of Arkansas.
I was not "saving" him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3,1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer. In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the
ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.
The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity. When I consider the caliber, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended.... When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against its military, should ever be in the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed Forces.
I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war). I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But, I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese,it is not enough. I'm writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being. I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have
fought and died. Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.
Eugene Holmes
Colonel, U.S.A., Ret.
September 1992

"W" might have been in the national guard here, but the slick one lied, begged, and probably blew people just to stay out of the war.

You're partially right!

Like Sparhawk said, Clinton was in Kosovo.
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/Eur...999-11-23c.html
He was there on Thanksgiving. And he was able to travel into a war zone only five months after the US-arranged coalition secured the liberation of Kosovo. He was milling about with the troops. Sure he had his security, but he was out in public. And did not spend all his time in the middle of a fortified military base.

You're wrong!



Anyway:
I think this little covert rendevous shoots to shit the idea that we are making any progress over there. November was the deadliest month in this war so far. Maybe if it wasn't so dangerous he would have held some photo-ops in front of some of these famous schools he has been building over there.......

onetime2 and Ustwo: So it was too risky for Bush to go to D.C. on 9/11 or to Ground Zero for several days thereafter. And besides, he has more important matters to deal with as POTUS than taking chances for personal political gain.

Uhh, and how is his trip to Iraq different?

Again, I give him credit for travelling to Iraq, just not alot. He's had opportunities before to show his courage and didn't. Courage after long reflection is carefully calculated risk.

Ummm again, what is it you want?

Him going to ground zero to early would have been REPREHENSIBLE. It would have been nothing but a photo op and would have gotten in the way of the real work. What would he have learned at GZ that he didn't already know? Nothing. What he would have done is slowed down the real work of trying to rescue any survivors. To even suggest that he should have gone earlier is nothing but Bush bashing for the sake of Bush bashing.

The Iraq visit was done for the morale of the troops and the American people. It made people feel GOOD, it was good for troop morale, it was good for families sitting at home with loved ones in harms way, it was just 'a good thing to do' (tm). When the biggest gripe the left has is that he lied to the press so he could sneak out, you know it must have been the right move. Sure he got good PR for it, but Bush is NOT a PR seeker. He did a lot of things after the Sept 11th attacks with the families of victims in which no cameras were allowed. I think if there is one thing both the left and right should be able to agree on is that Bush is not a camera hound.

But Ustwo blah blah blah Karl Rove blah blah blah, Dick Cheney blah blah blah evil white men.

There was (or was thought to be) a direct threat against the Pres on 9/11. Given that his trip to Iraq was not publicized there was no direct imminent threat in that trip.

His trip to Iraq was a damned big morale booster just as it was when he went to ground zero. Do you know exactly what he did in the days after 9/11 and before going to ground zero? No. How can you possibly make a comparison of the priorities without knowing what you're comparing it to? Don't bother answering as it's just a pot shot at the Pres with no understanding of the facts.

No one here actually knows what he did. In the meantime, that makes his opinion just as valid as your opinion.

I'm glad Bush went to Iraq. I think it was entirely appropriate. Is it PR? Sure. Is it a morale booster? Of course. Its both. I'm glad he did it and I believe it to be sincere. Sincerely campaigning and sincerely spending some time with the people who are making the ultimate sacrifice for us.

Did I say his opinion doesn't count? Nope. But the assertion that his priorities were not in order assumes that what he did was less important than going to Ground Zero. To think that paying tribute at Ground Zero trumps running the country after it was just attacked is naive.

You know, I dont like Bush at all, but that took serious balls. Despite his shortcomings, he does support the troops, and I respect that.

Unfortunately, Im not sure how much of that was genuine and how much of it was a PR stunt.

How long do you think he was in Air Force One before they told him where he was sneaking into in the middle of the night?

You are kidding right?

He is the president, I believe it was his decision to go or not.
You cant believe that they would put him on a plane fly him around and then say "oh yeah mr. president we are going to Baghdad so you can visit the troops":eek:

OK, yes his going to Iraq was a PR move and a morale boost for the troops over there. HOWEVER, by going there, Bush made a statement to our country and the rest of the world: We are going to see this one through! As Peter Brooks wrote "The president's lead-from-the-front visit was clearly a lot more than a photo op as some have suggested. True, it was symbolic - but some symbols, like the American flag, have powerful, hopeful, enduring meanings. " I couldn't have said it better myself!

It's not nessecarily a PR move because it makes him look good. Bush is a nice guy, I wouldn't be surprised if he just wanted to do something nice for our boys. In all liklihood, he probably went over there for a bunch of different reasons, including both pr and personal feelings.

I don't think anyone will ever know for sure is what I'm getting at, but this is kind of a trivial thing to be arguing about. Glad I don't have any plans to run for President, I'd go crazy if someone called me a nazi everytime I did something nice.

2 things.

1)Bush was in Florida on 9/11, so he didn't run away from D.C.

2)Clinton LIVES in New York, and he has nothing to do these days.

Clinton wasn't in NY when it happened. He was in Australia.

I stand corrected. :)

this was another stunt to gather support much like the whole top gun landing onthe aircraft carrier. only this time they forgot the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign. what mission by the way?

Did someone say publicity stunt?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-d...3490-2003Dec03
President Bush holds a platter at Baghdad airport on
Thanksgiving. The turkey had been primped to adorn
the buffet line, while the 600 soldiers were served
from steam trays. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais -- AP)

The Bird Was Perfect But Not For Dinner
In Iraq Picture, Bush Is Holding the Centerpiece

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......

_____
Not a big deal or anything. Just something... typical, of this administration.

Not trying to start an argument here, but if it's not a big deal, then why bother pointing it out? It comes across as just another attempted dig at Bush that has no real substance.

Now, if he tried to cut it and serve it to the troops that might be a fun topic to discuss. :D

I point it out to show that he is style over substance. He's a walking soundbite.

Like I said in another topic. Turkey is another thing to see him for a fraud.

I could feel some respect for him if he actually put on a hairnet and served the troops that he stationed in Iraq.
It's symbolic. But there's a certain aspect of humility I think he has never learned in his life.

why did bush not go to Afghanistan to visit the troops that are still dying in that lawless nation? maybe because the word Afghanistan vanished from his vocabulary when the Northern Alliance marched on Kandahar. just a thought.

I love how liberals take a photo that was about 4 seconds out of his visit and try to turn it into a symbol.

Try watching the tape of his visit.

You know, i had a thought (only one of a few today)

But if Shrub was sincere in his going to Iraq to bolster morale, and it was all done for the guys in uniform....

Why take several camera crews along with you????

Seriously, if he wanted to show his support for the armed forces, why couldn't he just go on his own, sit down for dinner with the boys without cameras and then say ciao.

Nope, he hauls along the cameras, it's shown on CNN. They even go so stupid as to tell you about the SUV shrub drove out of his ranch.

Give me a fucking break.

And Hillary Clinton is no better, she did the same fucking thing.

It's all bullshit and staged for the cameras.

exactly what he should have done. i have seen the tape ustwo and like most things during this war it was done in the most tasteless manner possible, hillary is just as bad, the troops seemed to be happy but the question is was their reaction staged, kinda like a sitcom was there a big applause or cheers sign above that we couldn't see. the way things have been going it would not surprise me.

exactly what he should have done. i have seen the tape ustwo and like most things during this war it was done in the most tasteless manner possible, hillary is just as bad, the troops seemed to be happy but the question is was their reaction staged, kinda like a sitcom was there a big applause or cheers sign above that we couldn't see. the way things have been going it would not surprise me.

The press was told he would be in Texas that day, it was a big secret. I don't know how you get that it was staged for cameras guy.

Hillary told people where she was going though. =).

it was staged because he had god knows how many camera crews with him. the press on air force one knew where they were going because it was like the old family vacation thing if they leaked it the plane would be turned around and they would go home. no turkey for george.

Come on people, get serious. He shouldn't have brought cameras along? Do you hate him or politicians in general so much that you will bitch about anything?

There were what 600 soldiers who actually got to see him in person? By taping it, the footage gets shared with the others that couldn't be there, it gets shared with the rest of the troops around the world who see that he cares enough to go visit them, and it gets shown to the rest of the American people who needed a morale boost after all the tragedy wrought by the killings of our soldiers in both Afghanistan and Iraq (and everyewhere else that soldiers are dying whether in training or in combat).

I guess by your reasoning, the President shouldn't make speeches either since it's probably just about him grandstanding. Perhaps a little memo out to everyone is the way to go.

The question was "was bush's baghdad visit genuine, or done for the cameras in order to aid his election campaign.

If it was that he genuinely wanted to show support for the troops, then why the need for the camera crews and forwarding it to the media rather instantaneously.

Truth be told, it was a cool gesture, but it had a more self serving motive as well.

He would have garnered more respect and less cynicism if he told the camera crews no filming.

more than a week later and i have only seen it or heard mention of it on the news 3 times....once when my alarm went off thanksgiving morning....once driving to my uncles thanksgiving afternoon - and once when my uncle was showing me his movie theater (literally), when i got to is house (that thing is bad ass....two 3 seater couches with massage and stadium seating.....70 some odd inch flat screen TV, kick ass soundsystem, and lights fade to pitch black when the movie starts) - perfect setting to watch my boy Bush (my uncle had to drop everything and leave the room when he came on)

oh yeah - being that their really hasn't been that much publicity, how come everyone's so convinced it was a publicity stunt

Umm, I think I covered why the need for cameras.

Yes and no.

It would have been interesting if he had no cameras (though I'm sure you would have people claiming he never went), but it would have been a waste in some ways. The visit was for more then just the 600 soldiers on hand.

People are GLAD he went and were happy to see him there from across the country. I'm sure it made some people choke on their bile, but my family had it on TV and thought it was great. It was a masterful move for morale and politically. The only people complaining are those who would NEVER vote for him anyways and they are complaining I think because they know how strongly symbolic it was.

Great PR move indeed.
Funny that the violence against US Troops over there stopped for that time period.

what're you suggesting?

symbolic of what that he realizes that opinion is turning on him and he needs to start grabbing at anything to boost morale. remember what happened last time the military lost morale in a war zone VIETNAM.

yeah i do remember, they lost morale because they lost support from the gov't, because of the anti-war protesters, who in turn spit on them when they got home

I'm still curious to know what he meant by "Funny that the violence against US Troops over there stopped for that time period."

That it is all of the sudden so safe to send the MOST important American to a place where soldiers are dying close to daily.
Not suggesting just commenting.

Tinfoil hats for everyone!

ahh - now i understand. Thanks. If you will recall people were all over Bush on 9/11 for not running straight out to the site of the twin towers - "oh my god, the President was actually flown to a safe location during an attack"

He just can't win can he....that's why i just shake my head at 90% of the complaints about him - useless arguing about.

wait for it the anti-war protests are only going to grow the longer this war carries on for. in vietnam the morale took a beating also because the americans were getting killed but could not see the enemy to fight back, hit and run warfare, the same way things are going. don't get me wrong and think that i want this to happen to the states because i never want vietnam to happen again but the similarities are pretty close you have to admit.

I go from board to board being ridiculed yet offering a challenge to my opponents to make comments and arguments against my view/point...this never happens and all people do is continue to make jokes.

I believe his move on 9-11 was the right one, and he made it to NY when the all clear was rung...very smart. Where he went (Oklahoma) and who was there (Warren Buffet) is the next conversation.

start a thread - have a great weekend everybody