I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
The whole thing about the "press acting like Bush stormed a bunch of insurgents" was a predictable outcome of this whole thing.
This is precisely why the Iraq photo-op was staged in the first place.
Rove knew the media would play willing propaganda dupe.
Chalk it up as just another stunt in the same category of PR moves as landing on an aircraft carrier.
But, what the Bush people didn't predict last May was the way that air craft carrier event came back to bite him on the ass in the wake of all the casualties.
If there is a God who responds to human petitions ruling this universe, then pray that this latest photo-op will come back to bite him on the ass as well.
Face it -- every newsroom in America was understaffed on Thanksgiving, and a "Bush flies to Iraq!!!" story wouldn't meet with any editorial resistance.
It's a shame that so many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to attribute the most cynical possible motives to anything that G.W. Bush or his administration do.
Problem is - the most cynical possible interpretation has consistently turned out to be the correct one.
The funny thing is the trip to England wasn't that different.
Chimperor couldn't go out in public in London, either.
Commander Bunnypants sneaks into Iraq for 2 hours and 31 minutes for a photo-op. I don't understand how that is "a good thing."
The cost of the trip should be charged to the RNC.
the newscasters' voices all soud like they are creamin' their panties.
Haven't like half the Congress (including Hillary Clinton and Jack Reid today) and most of the senior foreign policy dudes in the administration made actual tours of Iraq over an entire day or several days? Unlike flight suit, who rode in under cover of darkness and left as quick as he could.
I mean, this is pathetic. Wolfowitz showed more stones than Bush by actually staying overnight. Let's see if the press puffs up Hillary today for actually (schock!) scheduling a visit in advance. Of course, Hillary and the rest of us lefties are all objectively pro-Saddam anyway--so I s'pose a trip by her or any other commie Dem doesn't count in the codpiece sweepstakes.
I'd feel a little less cynical about this Bush photo-op if he thought it just as important to attend a soldier's funeral.
Jeremiah Elias
How would you like it to bite him in the ass? 200 casualties after a TG toast?
Yeah its been played up, but you make me sick.
Count me as someone who is skeptical that he even went to Iraq. He may have just gone to Ft. Hood and had some pics taken of him with some soldiers eating. Do we have any actualy proof he went to Iraq?
Andrew says Face it -- every newsroom in America was understaffed on Thanksgiving, and a "Bush flies to Iraq!!!" story wouldn't meet with any editorial resistance.
Even if the newsrooms were packed to the rafters yesterday, I doubt there would be any editorial resistance.
The TV titmice are still describing W's trip as "unprecedented." The only unusual thing about it was the shocking cowardice it revealed.
There's no doubt it was good for the moral of the troops, but if that was really the sole reason for the trip why have a hand-picked cadre of reporters and camera crews along to make sure it made the most of the 6:00 news. I would truly have repected the man if he would have went alone rather than turning it into a photo-op.
It was only done to upstage Hillary. I really think the cost of it should come out of his enormous campaign funds.
zenjive sez: Count me as someone who is skeptical that he even went to Iraq. He may have just gone to Ft. Hood and had some pics taken of him with some soldiers eating. Do we have any actualy proof he went to Iraq?
I'm thinking along those lines too. I find it a little hard to believe that AF 1, a 747 at that, could make a 12-hour international flight without raising any suspicion.
Who cares if it was nothing but a political stunt. In the long run it won't change how Americans will feel about Bush in either direction. Come Nov 2004 People are not going to stand in a voting booth and specifically remember his secret trip to Baghdad Airport. The only way you will be able to tell these pictures from other photo Ops is by the caption under the picture. Since no one reads any more, that won't matter much.
Note (a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&
u=/ap/20031128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush&cid=540&
ncid=716">this story, which has quotes from Bush and Andy Card piecing together the whole event and planning in all it's magnificent glory. Barely 18 hours after he was there, and already it's fully canonized for history, all the way down to who first thought of the grand idea, who raised the objections, and how our brave leader embraced the peril. Propaganda and it's finest, already fully scripted for the archives. (One wonders when exactly Bush and Card had time to give all these quotes recounting the whole grand adventure - was this one of the carefully handpicked secret reporters).
Some reports indicate the meal in Iraq was held up for half an hour because the white house was waiting for optimal TV time, during a respite from the football games and parades. Those men and women in Iraq waited for their meal so my goober uncles could see Bush playing mother Theresa w
Count me as someone who is skeptical that he even went to Iraq. He may have just gone to Ft. Hood and had some pics taken of him with some soldiers eating
If that were true and it came out, Bush would be finished instantly. I am not sure they would take that kind of risk.
Most important question:
Did he go pumpkin or pecan?
Monkeybutt: Wouldn't it just be too sweet? 
But I agree it would be too risky, if he would dine with a couple of hundred guys that could make a 'eck load of money by spilling their guts on TV, they would probably do it sooner rather than later.
So yes he wags the dog, but he wags it on site.
Either that or Ft. Hood has a couple of hundred extra bodybags to process.
This was nothing but a campaign commercial, staged by Rove, the troops nothing but underpaid extras, more valuable to our so-called leader as props than soldiers.
Hate comes real slow to me. I am beginning to really hate this man and everyone around him.
Oh jeez, Ashcroft's knocking on my door....
As someone posted in the "Bush in Baghdad" comments, if Iraq's STILL so dangerous that Bush needed all that security, then the White House has been blatantly lying about post-war Iraq. And if Iraq IS safe, Bush looks like an uber-coward.
Either that or Ft. Hood has a couple of hundred extra bodybags to process.
Suffering as I am from chronic paranoia that would really take me into the Twilight Zone.
Sorry, Atrios, I don't see this as a "good thing".
It's a sleazy photo-op and it'll go down in history as yet another SS Lincoln-style goof-up.
You have to ask yourself: would Bush bother visiting the troops if the secretive nature of the trip prevented him from bringing the press along?
Our (on balance very good) paper had a photo of Bush holding a giant tray of turkey, and my friend Jennifer took one look at it and wrote her own caption:
"Bush delivers his brain to troops."
A.
Hillary met with Karzai and called for more troops in Afghanistan.
She ate with some troops. Their reactions were positive:
'"I have a lot of respect for her as a woman," said Staff Sgt. Tamecha Moore, 31, from Hempstead, N.Y. "I hope she runs for president."'
She signed autographs for soldiers, many of whom requested that they be addressed to thier daughters.
And while Bush pranced around for the cameras and tried to make Thanksgiving all about him, real heroes were planning to go to Iraq on a real mission of peace:
"Small group of troops' relatives head to Baghdad on peace mission"
"What we have in common is that we think that the Bush administration has got us into quite a mess in Iraq and we want to help find a solution that will both be positive for the U.S. troops and the Iraqis," Benjamin said.
http://www.newsobserver.com/24ho...p-
7488940c.html
Aren't Sens. Clinton and Reed due to visit Iraq today? Are they facing the same security risk? I just read an article about yesterday's visit to Kabul and nothing was mentioned about anyone fearing for their safety there (even though several aid workers have been gunned down in recent weeks). Is it because they're Democrats? Hmmm.
It was a masterful PR move, no matter what his motives. It's what they're good at, after all. This is an administration dedicated to marketing.
And instead of whining about it, we need to get better at the same tactics. Time to take off the pink tutus, boys.
Who benefits from this? Bush?
How?
Democrats are not going to vote for him, so that's 40 percent of the population out right there.
Republicans are already going to vote for him, so that the other 40 percent.
The 10 percent in the middle? Maybe, but I think this is more to shore up his base. I think Karl Rove saw some pretty nasty poll numbers about how Republicans are viewing their President, and had to take SOME action.
This won't win him any points with the Democrats, but it shores up his base.
Which is heartening, that they would take so much risk for such little gain.
To the Middle East, it makes him look like a coward. Sneaking in and out?
Cowardice.
I don't think the trip changed many "hearts and minds" one way or another. 95 % of the country seems to have made up it's mind about Bush, (excluding his war-time polling).
"He didn't meet with any locals. He didn't meet with the governing council. He flew into a heavily fortified military base and then flew out again."
you forgot ... risking his plane being blown out of the air by any number of RPG's
Just ask yourself: If Clinton had done the exact same thing, would the Repubs and the media be having multiple orgasms about it? Or would it (rightly) be called a cheap stunt?
Of course, one thing the press won't report on is the number of extra troops unnecessarily put at risk securing the area around the Baghdad airport so Bush could pretend he was visiting the front. Wonder how many of those soldiers knew the real reason unusal numbers of them were suddenly ordered out in the nighttime darkness? Or afterward, did anyone ask them how they felt about risking their asses so that the man who sent them to war on a lie could spend two hours getting his picture taken with a roast turkey and a carving knife as his jumbo jet idled a few feet away? Do you suppose any of the poor bastards who have spent the last six months dodging RPG's appreciate the fact that this scripted little airport photo-op is the closest our fraudulent warrior-in-chief ever got to combat in his life? Probably. But the idiot press certainly never will.
[[Democrats are not going to vote for him, so that's 40 percent of the population out right there.]]
You are way off.
The flight suit photo op didn't work because it wasn't a 'mission accomplished.' That photo op is worth more to Dems than to the Bushies. This trip into the valley of death won't matter one iota unless he starts doing it with some regularity. Until then, it will be looked on as a craven attempt for political gain. I don't think the Bushies are that god damn smart, they just play to their lowest common supporters. Unfortunately, that includes most of the beltway whore press.
meh, it was a "good thing" I guess, bit of a moral boost but on the whole a typical photo-opp that any polition would have jumped at.
But the fact that security had to be insane tight just goes to show that Iraq is as stable as Tony Danza's film career.
Frankly, I think the bigger story was that the pathetic Detroit Lions defeated the Green Bay Packers.
That's like the Iraqi army driving the United States armed forces out of Iraq, if you ask me.
To the tinfoilers: Bush drug along several news organizations with him, so no, he actually went there. But that opens up a new can of worms: the only TV network handpicked to go along was... oh, you know the answer already.
Here's an interesting reaction from the troops:
But other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.
"Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?" one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. "I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here."
Courtesy AP at http://www.h
Ugh! http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/11/28/
17819244.cfm
"you forgot ... risking his plane being blown out of the air by any number of RPG's"
I doubt that a RPG could have ever gotten near his plane. He was certainly surrounded by Fighters, Choppers, and Gunships as he came and went. I'm also sure that they sprialed in from high altitude right over the airport. Not some long aproach over land. It was really a low risk stunt. If an RPG had been fired some fighter jock would have taken the hit for him.
zenjive wrote:
"Count me as someone who is skeptical that he even went to Iraq. He may have just gone to Ft. Hood and had some pics taken of him with some soldiers eating."
Methinks you are too optimistic- I'd bet that he stayed home and had some soldiers from Ft. Hood brought to him....
BFD! I would be impressed if he enlists his daughters to fight in Iraq.
Any moron, as this proves, can go into a war zone with an army protecting him and the SS at home keep it a secret.
Big Media Matt has it right:
"Meanwhile, what the troops need is not a visit from the commander-in-chief, but a commander-in-chief who knows what he's doing. Similarly, the president doesn't need to spend a couple of hours with the soldiers, he needs to figure out what the hell is going on in Iraq and what he's going to do about it."
http://www.matthewyglesias.com/
a...932.html#001932
Reminds me of Saddam.
Sneaking around Iraq, never in one place more than a few hours.
[[Democrats are not going to vote for him, so that's 40 percent of the population out right there.]]
You are way off.
Yeah? You're right, more like over 50, if you assume everyone who voted for Gore will do so again.
Minus a couple of Supreme Court justices, mind you.
Chimperor couldn't go out in public in London, either.
Someone please elaborate where he can appear in public. In Crawford? I don't think so. His father was criticized because he didn't know how the 'real world' worked, or how 'real people' lived -- the grocery scanner, etc. I think this guy is far, far worse than his father.
Does he ever greet people anywhere -- the rope line event, like Clinton did so much? I think it happens only on the WH lawn, when they disembark from the helicopter.
[[Yeah? You're right, more like over 50, if you assume everyone who voted for Gore will do so again.]]
Oh, now you're on to "50 percent of the population"?? Just thought you'd increase your error, I see.
"He didn't meet with any locals. He didn't meet with the governing council."
Oh but he met with our boy, Cha-Cha-Chalabi!
"Mr. Bush, who spent only two and a half hours in Baghdad, all in the secure area around the airport, also met with members of the Iraqi Governing Council, including Ahmad Chalabi, the exile leader who is close to senior officials at the Pentagon."
Susan from Philly has "got" it.
These guys know shit about economics, governing, you name it. But they are one tough political machine.
They are for sure going to land a couple of hard shots in between now and the elections, and we'll just have to step back, shake our heads clear, nod appreciatively and wade back into the fight.
I didn't get too far into the 100+ comments on the initial post, mostly because a lot of the posts sure seemed of a tone to give our trolls great pleasure.
Don't give them the pleasure. This was a good one- it isn't going to backfire like the aircraft carrier stunt, it's done, give the devil his due and move on.
And yeah, and, unlike the Medicare bill, it actually did somebody (the troops) some good.
The good news is, when the champ realized that he's in deep do-do against a young challenger, he starts swinging knockout punches in hopes that one will land.
I think Rove knows that his boy is in trouble, and he's sent him out swi
Not much film from this visit,
Warning: this post contains the dreaded sports analogy. Those likely to be offended should scroll rapidly down the page...
GWB has slammed down a monster, two-handed, rim-hanging dunk right in our faces, and is now trotting back up the court, mugging and whooping it up for the home crowd.
I think the best thing for those of us who count ourselves his political opponents is not to waste time and effort trying to impugn his motives (cynical though they are) or to diminish his 'courage' (dubious as this may be) but to credit him for this modest, albeit photogenic, gesture and get back to the difficult business of revealing this administration, point by painstaking point, as the dangerous, morally bankrupt corporate juggernaut it is.
Run your offense, get back on defense and don't worry about all the times you're going to see that slam-dunk on 'Sports Center.' It's still only two points.
Not much from this visit, a speech or press conference (even limited) would have been expected. Some interviews with troops. But nope. Just smirks.
I wish he would have just stayed in Bagdhad for the remainder of his term.
AHHHHGH!!!!! Sports Metaphors!!!!!!Stop it hurts!!!I didn't listen and scroll down!!!!!....whimper...whimper.....
Run your offense, get back on defense and don't worry about all the times you're going to see that slam-dunk on 'Sports Center.' It's still only two points.
Yep, and he owns the ref's. Smirkin' to the bank.
Unprecedented? Didn't LBJ visit Name?
???what happened to the rest of my post??
Oh well. I was just saying that if you have your opponent overmastered, you just disassemble him bit by bit.
Like Lewis did to Tyson.
But if you don't think your boy can go 12 rounds against HoDo or Clarke, you send him out to take big swings and hope you get lucky.
And Eisenhower went to Korea.
Bush flies into Iraq in complete secrecy, which makes sense. Then flies out again, 2 hours later, again in complete secrecy. NPR this morning reported the trip itself wasn't reported (what, they muzzled reporters?) until Bush was airborne again.
You'd have thought he was flying into London....
Okay, cheap shot, but even the NPR reporter noted it wasn't the bravest act in the world, flying in at night, skittering out again, not even telling the Secret Service bodyguard on duty at the time what was planned. Bush "the common man" couldn't even be bothered to eat with the troops. He "served" them (in 2 hours? pretty symbolic act, that) then ran off again, back to Crawford.
Was all the secrecy necessary? Maybe. But when he's standing in Baghdad bragging about the "greatest military force in the world" (or whatever words he used), he doesn't show much confidence in his own security that he conducts the trip in such a clandestine manner.
Hell, even LBJ made a Ch
Make that Nam, not Name.
Ooops, sorry Bing. ;>
(I had such a good one about the Jeff Blake Bungles and how they... oh, never mind...)
It would be a "good thing" (reminded of fine young cannibals, from the 80's...) if his actions were genuine...
Aussies ABC see it for what it is, and so do 90% of the 292,704,198 US folks that engaged their Holiday yesterday...
More proof positive NTSC and cables are chubby for ANY Rove engineered politico stunt, except of course the outing of a CIA asset, or real news regarding the National Commission on Terrorist attacks
which receives
nary a breath inside our borders...
Wrt this pResident;s PR stunt, good thing my ass, 'Trios...
Hell, talked too long.
End of post should be something like: Big Media Matt has it right: what the troops need is not a President who grandstands on their shoulders, but one who has a clue as to what he's doing.
This was a political stunt. It may look good to Rove in commercials. I don't think it looks like that much to the country as a whole.
I didn't get the impression from the press that Bush had done a heroic act but a compassionate act. The only place I am finding the "Bush the Brave" meme are left wing web sites desperate to bash Bush for doing the right thing.
Like they say, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Trying to find a way to bash Bush because he went to Iraq to server turkey and stuffing to 600 soldiers makes you look petty. The press is right though, there was some danger in Bush going to Iraq. Not the sort of danger that the troops faced in the push to Iraq but the sort of danger DHL faced trying to land at the same airport. But on a whole, I see the press coverage as focusing on Bush's actions and not the inherent threat of landing in Iraq.
"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins." - from Bush's Thanksgiving speech
I just hate the way this guy is constantly framing the conflict as a test of manliness. It is such a boyish point of view.
And I also hate the fact that half the population in this country buys right into it. If they were less insecure about themselves, they'd see right through Bush.
Oh, now you're on to "50 percent of the population"?? Just thought you'd increase your error, I see.
You're right, Anon.
I should have said "voting population."
Of which more than 50 percent voted for Gore, IIRC.
So you think this trip was aimed at more than shoring up the Republican base?
Every Republican I've talked to in person feels this guy is a loser. Every single one.
All he did was crash a Thanksgiving party, and thanked them for the imagined invitation. Totally in character.
Just ask yourself: If Clinton had done the exact same thing, would the Repubs and the media be having multiple orgasms about it? Or would it (rightly) be called a cheap stunt?
Clinton went to Kosovo during Thanksgiving and not a peep out of Republicans about it being a cheap stunt.
Heh, the idea of him flying to Iraq to heroically deliver turkey to the troops led me to think of him as a superhero:
Turkey-Man
Invisible to those who can't see him.
Able to communicate without language.
Able to fly as a passenger in almost any type of plane.
Weakness: pretzels, the truth
He didn't meet with any locals. He didn't meet with the governing council. He flew into a heavily fortified military base and then flew out again.
The President meet with four Iraq Governing Council members, including Mr. Chalabi. If you are going to bash Bush at least get your facts straight.
other soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave.
Can't a man get a haircut in peace?
I think Rove knows that his boy is in trouble, and he's sent him out swinging
doesn't matter
I've heard this from a couple of analysts this week -- but don't ask me to recall who they were.
*****************************
Unprecedented? Didn't LBJ visit Nam?
Of course, and Eisenhower, and Nixon, and Clinton. I think they mean unprecedented in that the press has been snookered again.
*************************
I hope some people are e-mailing Crossfire and Hardball and Blitzer with some of these questions. We know there's going to be wall-to-wall coverage again today about this 'unprecedented' event.
Clinton went to Kosovo during Thanksgiving and not a peep out of Republicans about it being a cheap stunt.
No... they blamed the entire war as being a cheap stunt.
Cite: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/
13/211338.shtml
Clinton went to Kosovo during Thanksgiving and not a peep out of Republicans about it being a cheap stunt.
And they say satire's dead!
"a cheap stunt"
Hell, no, it wasn't a cheap stunt. Had to have cost millions .. . .
"He didn't meet with any locals. He didn't meet with the governing council. He flew into a heavily fortified military base and then flew out again.
The President meet with four Iraq Governing Council members, including Mr. Chalabi. If you are going to bash Bush at least get your facts straight.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:07 am | #"
He said "Locals", not woefully out of touch, opportunistic, US-installed, exiles.
"Clinton went to Kosovo during Thanksgiving and not a peep out of Republicans about it being a cheap stunt.
And they say satire's dead!
dave | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 11:10 am | #"
Satire requires a grain of truth.
Can't a man get a haircut in peace?
dave
Clinton got that haircut at Baghdad Int'l airport? I though bush was the fir .... oh, you made a joke! Driving down the LA freeway is the same as IEDs on the Baghdad highway?!! Now I get it!
SteveLG, that's exactly it. While they're taking a curtain call, we're five miles down the road planning to drop a huge water balloon on them.
I actually kind of thought it was nice, that he did that. If only he acted with such compassion and thought of the troops first the rest of the time. But yeah, let's let it drop and plan the next move.
And Hesiod, about the Packers ... A minute 56 to go in the half, Amman Green reasonably not screwing up too badly yet, 3rd and 1, do you not run the football?! The hell?!!!
A.
[[Of which more than 50 percent voted for Gore, IIRC.]]
Nope, again.
Here's the results of PE2000:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/U...RAL/
pe2000.html
Usually, the terms one uses are:
1) Population - number of residents of a given area. If one were to say "40 or 50% of the population is Democrat", that's like saying roughly 120-150 million people are Democrats.
2) Voting Age Population (VAP), or the number of people theoretically allowed to vote (over 18, citizen, non-felon [depends on the state])
3) Registered Voters - people who have registered to vote, so they can vote in an election
4) Voter Turnout - the number of people who actually voted in a given election. In this case, I believe this is what you meant by "Voting Population".
Here's two sources that cover the whole Dem/Rep/Ind dynamic in the US.
http://www.newamerica.net/index....ticle&
pubID=149
http://www.gallup.com/
election20...dwayreport2.htm
"We (what do you mean "We"?) did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq (the Heart of Darkness?), pay a bitter cost of casualties (that's a polite word for horrible deaths and injuries), defeat a ruthless dictator (who we cannot find) and liberate 25 million people (who have yet to thank us) only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins (who we cannot find or identify)."
[[So you think this trip was aimed at more than shoring up the Republican base?]]
I don't think Republicans worry about Republicans voting for them. They tend to be more loyal than Democrats. I think they're far more concerned about the suburban soccer moms, military-aligned people, and other voters who have some conservative sympathies, but are disturbed by the number of people being killed, for a war which doesn't seem to have much rationale at this point.
[[Every Republican I've talked to in person feels this guy is a loser. Every single one.]]
I wouldn't say every single one feels that way -- not even close, unfortunately. However, a good number of Republicans think he's corrupt and a screwup. The question for them, though, is a "lesser evil" one, and you really might not grasp how thoroughly the thought of any Democratic candidate turns their stomachs, whether you agree or not. It's just how it is.
Bush flew to 'Iraq' and has a box of moonrocks to prove it.
you forgot ... risking his plane being blown out of the air by any number of RPG's
please, would you republican trolls explain to me how you can reconcile bush being at all 'heroic' in any sense of the term, when in fact he was given his opportunity to fight in a war and he not only joined a totally combat removed unit (the texas air nation guard)... but even went AWOL from that (which he never explained)... and never so much as bothered to explain his motives in any sense of the word.
it's hypocrisy at its highest and most vivid level.
As my daddy used to say, figures don't lie, but liars figure. So let's just say Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 and leave it that, Brownshirt.
You can go back to jerking off to those pictures of Chimpy in his flight suit now...
[[Every Republican I've talked to in person feels this guy is a loser. Every single one.]]
I wouldn't say every single one feels that way -- not even close, unfortunately. However, a good number of Republicans think he's corrupt and a screwup. The question for them, though, is a "lesser evil" one, and you really might not grasp how thoroughly the thought of any Democratic candidate turns their stomachs, whether you agree or not. It's just how it is.
That's true. True of Greens too.
Nixon visited South Vietnam in 1969. It wasn't a secret, and he stayed longer than two and a half hours.
One stuffed turkey on a platter, one stuffed turkey walking around with the platter.
Now the GOP will say that Bush went to Iraq and wielded a knife in the name of freedom. What an a**hole.
I never saw any genuine article or book that studied how the average Germans felt towards their troops in, say, 1942.
But since the Wehrmacht was comprised of many good and dutiful sons and husbands of German families who hadn't particularly *asked* for Hitler's campaign of aggression, I suppose that they too supported their boys, and prayed for their safe reeturn home.
And who could blame them?..
Nevertheless the whole war was WRONG -- even against Stalin who was a worse tyrant than Hussein and was hated by many of his countrymen and military.
Stalingrad, if nothing else, is a perfect example that the natives will fight for their homegrown tyrant against a murderous occupation force.
And the US army IS a murderous occupation force -- what's the score of Iraquis we killed? 109,000? 12,000?
Let us remember that most people here were against the war and did not wish for the deaths of anyone: American soldiers OR Iraqi civilians. We wanted peace instead.
Today,
He said "Locals", not woefully out of touch, opportunistic, US-installed, exiles.
He said governing council which the response was too.
Today, we do not wish for any more deaths: instead, many of us want the troops to come home, like, now.
But ultimately Germany had to come to the painful realization it was defeated, and I suspect that this country will have too.
Not even Dean appears to understand that we have already lost.
This is why Bush's visit to Iraq was a criminal act that can only prolong the pain, the suffering and the deaths.
Lights - camera - action! Susan from Philly HAS "got it." Bush, Inc. does Madison Ave quite well. But as DeIullio noted as he left the Whitehouse in disgust over the federal funding of religious charities, Bush Inc. is all flash and zero substance. EVERYTHING is done with politics in mind. The media, faced with a day of NO NEWS, rejoiced at this one falling into their collective lap. Let it go... it's neutralized by Hillary's visit anyway.
Bush did NOT meet with any of the Iraqi Governing Council. Our facts are straight anon.
He snuck in and snuck out because the place is so dangerous he literally cannot be assured of his security otherwise,
Clinton went to Kosovo after he drive the entirer Serbian Army out and he did it in full daylight without having to threaten any reporters.
Bush did this because he basically cannot use the million dollar Mission Accomplished photo op.
Look at it this way: Bush now has been to TWO other countries.
I think the security was well-deserved. I believe that Condoleeza Rice insisted on it, lest the jet engine intakes of Air Force One be clogged by tons of rose petals thrown by the grateful Iraqi liberated.
I object to the visit less than the opportunity the White House has taken to shop Iraq as part of, rather than a criminal distraction from, the campaign against terror. And, of course, it's becoming clear that Bush is (was) only the second most powerful man in Iraq, now that we're publicly admitting that Ayatollah Ali Sistani has veto power over all our postwar plans.
Aww, isn't that cute!
Mr. Bush also noted that without his usual motorcade, he experienced pre-Thanksgiving Texas traffic.
"The president encountered and witnessed traffic for the first time in three years," Mr. Bartlett told the small group of reporters, photographers and television technicians who accompanied Mr. Bush. "That was a little amusing to those who were riding with him."
Someone should show him a supermarket checkout scanner...
Bush did this because he basically cannot use the million dollar Mission Accomplished photo op.
Bingo! Maccabee nails it.
"He said "Locals", not woefully out of touch, opportunistic, US-installed, exiles.
He said governing council which the response was too.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:31 am | #"
Which is comprised of woefully out of touch, opportunistic, US-installed, exiles.
Pay attention.
Anonymous,
When DO you start Junior year?
"He didn't meet with any locals. He didn't meet with the governing council. He flew into a heavily fortified military base and then flew out again.
The President meet with four Iraq Governing Council members, including Mr. Chalabi. If you are going to bash Bush at least get your facts straight.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:07 am | #"
The Governing Council has 25 members -- Shrub saw 4 members ...
When does 4 equal 25????
If you are going to attack --- etc.
Yeah? You're right, more like over 50, if you assume everyone who voted for Gore will do so again.
Good point--since the 2000 split was 50/50, 2004 is going to be decided by the cross-over vote (assuming honest voting practices, which isn't a certainty with our GOP brethren).
* * *
Bush "the common man" couldn't even be bothered to eat with the troops. He "served" them . . . .
A man who travels with five chefs does not willingly eat Army food.
Checkmate.
All he did was crash a Thanksgiving party, and thanked them for the imagined invitation. Totally in character.
And received a spontaneous, thunderous standing ovation upon entering the room "uninvited". Typically party crashers do not receive such a reception. Then after his little "thank you" speech, he was mobbed by the 600 soldiers with handshakes, autograph requests and photographs.
To make a comparison, Hillary Clinton's "invited appearance" in Afghanistan was received with far, far, far much less enthusiasm than Bush's to Iraq. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told the Boston Globe that the troops were more excited to see Geraldo Rivera than Hillary Clinton. Now you have to be really unpopular if people are more excited to see Geraldo than you.
I predict this'll be on SNL this weekend. Bush wore a disguise, the NYT says.
This stunt is good for troop morale in the same way a pinata is fun at a kid's birthday party - whack that motherfucker. Grunt humor can be wicked dead on funny. Read "Jar Head" if you haven't already.
doesn't matter & Steve LG are right.
It's done; they scored one; move on, move on, move on.
Even if it was "brave" and cheered up the troops, it doesn't excuse: lying about uranium from Niger, lying about WMD stockpiles, lying in the SOTU speech, violating international law on aggressive war, violating the Geneva conventions, violating the rights of Americans through the Patriot Act, exposing a CIA operative to punish a war critic, blocking the progress of the 9/11 commission, etc, etc, etc.
Let's get back to real issues.
The Governing Council has 25 members -- Shrub saw 4 members ... When does 4 equal 25???? If you are going to attack --- etc.
You got to do betting than that. If you have to engage in verbal gymnastics to defend such a glaring error, it won't cut it. He met with the head of the Governing Council and three members. He with council members. Atrios said he did not along with locals. Bush did both.
Not even Dean appears to understand that we have already lost.
Ever wanting to increase my knowledge and to stay abreast, could you please explain this statement?
Steve Gilliard nails it:
Bush still has no answers on how to deal with Iraq other than "we're gonna get them terrarist sums uh bitches". The one game plan which isn't working. So he sneaks in, pats a few soldiers on the back, happy to see anyone from home, and sneaks back out. Does he stop at Walter Reed? Invite some local Waco-area families who lost kids in Iraq over to the ranch for pecan pie? Nope. See, only the healthy soldiers were needed for this photo op. Any reminder of sacrifice was a bad thing. And it kind of hard to get the right visuals when you have soldiers struggling to eat with a hook where their hand used to be.
"The Governing Council has 25 members -- Shrub saw 4 members ... When does 4 equal 25???? If you are going to attack --- etc.
You got to do betting than that. If you have to engage in verbal gymnastics to defend such a glaring error, it won't cut it. He met with the head of the Governing Council and three members. He with council members. Atrios said he did not along with locals. Bush did both.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:47 am | #"
You're breaking up.... Time for another beer.
He met with the head of the Governing Council and three members.
For how long? What was discussed? What was decided? What decisions were made? Were minutes taken? Or do they take minutes at a minute-long "meeting?"
Give it up, Brownshirt... and best to Unka Karl!
Atrios said he did not along with locals. Bush did both.
Anonymous
Bush did both what? I think by locals here it was meant grateful Iraqis.
lying about uranium from Niger, lying about WMD stockpiles, lying in the SOTU speech, violating international law on aggressive war, violating the Geneva conventions, violating the rights of Americans through the Patriot Act, exposing a CIA operative to punish a war critic, blocking the progress of the 9/11 commission,
Please, please, please! Nothing would be better for the Republican party than to have this constant drumbeat of "BUSH LIED!!!" be the campaign of the Democrats. Write your favorite Democratic candidate and stress that this be their campaign theme.
More from Gilliard:
"...soldiers grew angry that their departure from the airport was delayed for an hour, while they waited for Air Force One to leave. Finding the door barred, about 50 troops got into a shouting match with the soldier blocking their exit. The streets of Baghdad were too dangerous to delay their departure any longer, they shouted.
'Do you have any idea how many IEDs are on this road?' one soldier who didn't give his name shouted, referring to improvised explosive devices or roadside bombs. 'I have to get back to my base. I don't want to lose a soldier because the president wants us to sit here.'"
Remember when Clinton was excoriated for tying up traffic while he got a haircut on Air Force One at LAX, a story later proven to be untrue? Well, in this case, soldiers could have died waiting for Air Force One to leave. But you won't hear anyone protesting that. Apparently, a drive from Baghdad to the airport isn't safe. Six months after our occupation
"lying about uranium from Niger, lying about WMD stockpiles, lying in the SOTU speech, violating international law on aggressive war, violating the Geneva conventions, violating the rights of Americans through the Patriot Act, exposing a CIA operative to punish a war critic, blocking the progress of the 9/11 commission,
Please, please, please! Nothing would be better for the Republican party than to have this constant drumbeat of "BUSH LIED!!!" be the campaign of the Democrats. Write your favorite Democratic candidate and stress that this be their campaign theme.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:52 am | #"
So you admit that he lied. Is this the kind of president you want? Can you honestly say that you support the lying Bush used to go to war?
Hear, hear, anonymous!
That's a great idea - call those CongressPeople and Senators and candidates and tell them to
Say It Loud
We're Dumb and Proud!
Bush Lied and He's a coward, too!!
THAT'll get votes, you bet...
I like the London Independent's take on the visit:
headline: "The Turkey has Landed"
http://news.independent.co.uk/wo...sp?
story=467982
But did he bring his 5 chefs with him this time?
And how much did the stunt cost the taxpayers? Couldn't he at least have met one Iraqi? So he can get his roses and kisses and all in person?
Not even Dean appears to understand that we have already lost.
Ever wanting to increase my knowledge and to stay abreast, could you please explain this statement?
Streaker | Email | 11.28.03 - 11:48 am
With pleasure. I believe that we have now lost the war in Iraq, as we lost the war in Vietnam. The only thing we're doing now is purchasing more marble slates for the future memorial.
if Chalabi counts as a "local Iraqi" then I'm J-Lo.
As my daddy used to say, figures don't lie, but liars figure. So let's just say Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 and leave it that, Brownshirt.
You can go back to jerking off to those pictures of Chimpy in his flight suit now...
dave | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 11:26 am | #
==========
State some basic facts, get the terminology straight, don't take sides, and... get called a Nazi on Eschaton.
Par for the course.
Now that Bob Hope is dead, there is only Bush left to carry on...
Those USO entertainers (and I know the difference between entertainers and the unelected cowardly fraud) have shown more guts dancing, singing and joking in real war zones, with real risk that they would be killed or maimed than this idiot. His stunt is actually entertainment for the sheeple here at home as it did absolutely nothing to end this war.
This stunt is NOT in any way "a good thing" no matter how we try to put the "let's not spoil THANKSGIVING and say bad things about the fraud's motives" spin on it.
He has chosen to ignore the true suffering of our service men and women in harms way, their all too frequent deaths and maiming, and the unbearable suffering that is to come before this "crusade" is over.
Until this bastard pays homage to our dead, our wounded, and restores our brave veteran's benefits and gets us the hell out of Iraq, then everything he does should simply be viewed as a
That's true. True of Greens too.
johnx | Email | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 11:26 am | #
=========
There seems to be quite a bit of support for Dean, Kuchinich, and even Clark from Greens in this election cycle. Perhaps you should do some research.
Anon,
You don't know the difference between bullshit and reality.
Let me clear up a few points.
Bush did this because he has no substantive way to shore up his cnstituency than with highly staged photo ops.
A soldier died today in the increasingly unstable Northern Iraq that Bushco once hailed as stabilized and no one paid attention to it.
I am bringing it to your attention since you have nothing better to do than read lefty blogs and post your nonsense.
Finally, Bush did NOT meet with any members of the Iraqi Governing Council.
Oh yeah...,Bush lied.
[[Aww, isn't that cute!
Mr. Bush also noted that without his usual motorcade, he experienced pre-Thanksgiving Texas traffic.]]
So, you're saying other Presidents often traveled without a motorcade and got stuck in traffic a lot?
A man who travels with five chefs does not willingly eat Army food.
Molly, NYC | Email | 11.28.03 - 11:42 am | #
========
So, you're saying that other Presidents didn't travel with White House chefs?
Anonymous,
When DO you start Junior year?
Monkey | 11.28.03 - 11:40 am | #
===========
Typical response from the intellectually insecure. I apologize for trying to help you polish your language and beomce smarter about the issues.
Actually, after the first national debate, when Bush leaves bruised, bloodied and battered from the Democratic nominee after trying to jump through contorted hoops of his own making, "Bush lied" will have a lot more cachet.
'Specially since he did.
Republicans seem to act as if Bush will never take the stage with the Democratic nominee, as if he'll never get pressed on anything he's said or done.
Considering that the pendulum on Iraq is swinging *against* you guys, the cocky act really doesn't work. All the preening and strutting in the world doesn't equal us having gotten in this war honestly, or the American people thinking it's going well.
Anonymous thinks we look petty if we are not impressed with latest 'CHICKEN-hawk Leader' PR stunt.
I am an American and I am free to be as unimpressed as I want to be. And I am free to say so... still. John Asscroft and his gestapo be damned.
The thing the Right wing wants the most is for us to shut up and let them keep running the country into the ground. Dissent is... unpatriotic, uncivil, not nice, unwise, petty... and... required when dealing with these neo conmen.
I was in the military and I would have spit on GWB if he wanted to use me for a prop and then run for home.
And the 'Mission Accomplished' PR disaster was first pushed as a great PR victory for prancer. As Georgie's bankrupt Folly continues, the 'Baghdad Hustle' will most likely look like just another cheap PR stunt.
He who laughs last laughs best.
'Petty' is as 'Petty' does.
I think craven 'CHICKEN-hawk Leader' Georgie Bush wears petticoats and is a piss himself coward
Dana Bash on the Clinton News Channel is so excited she can barely contain her glee. Here’s a chance to prove you aren't a tool for the administration.
Find out when Hillary filed her request to travel to Afghanistan & Iraq.
The NYT said Andrew Card brought this up in mid October during the trip to Asia. Inquiring minds want to know how much advance notice do congressional delegations have to file to get a trip approved? Who do they have to inform? Who grants permission? If I recall correctly, one congressional group had their Korean trip canceled by someone in power.
Prove to us skeptics that a bad poll and Hillary’s trip didn’t create an oh-no moment for Rove on Tuesday morning.
Bush only appears in public with groups he knows will show enthusiastic approval: very young children, high-level Republicans in government, and carefully selected members of the military (i.e., live, healthy ones who know how to behave around the Commander in Chief). The level of secrecy and scripting is increasingly reminiscent of the old Soviets or ChiComs.
And received a spontaneous, thunderous standing ovation upon entering the room "uninvited". Typically party crashers do not receive such a reception. Then after his little "thank you" speech, he was mobbed by the 600 soldiers with handshakes, autograph requests and photographs.
To make a comparison, Hillary Clinton's "invited appearance" in Afghanistan was received with far, far, far much less enthusiasm than Bush's to Iraq. Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told the Boston Globe that the troops were more excited to see Geraldo Rivera than Hillary Clinton. Now you have to be really unpopular if people are more excited to see Geraldo than you.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:45 am | #
==========
Nice "objective" piece. Get it from Newsmax?
Well, INDEED!
It’s lonely to be a deployed G.I. on Turkey day and Christmas, I know and I gotta tell you, this president is a class act from top to bottom.
I was watching on CNN and saw him serving up chow. It’s been a tradition for decades for commanders to serve chow on special days like these.
Watching the reaction of the common G.I. (you can’t B.S. them, they’ll see through it every time!) and the respect they show makes it very clear to me this man is worthy to be Commander in Chief.
Cheers,
Jim H, CMSgt USAF ret.
P.S. The liberals went nuts over the carrier landing, I can’t imagine what this will do to them!
So, you're saying that other Presidents didn't travel with White House chefs? Anonymous
Not necessarily, AH! But he went to an American facility with security so tight that the cockroaches had been frisked?!! And it's been widely reported that he did not eat, only served (altogether: awwwwww!). Think things through before you comment!! It was Iraq, his war, his game. Not like going to London last week ....
BTW, HOW IT ALL WENT DOWN: DETAILED REPORT OF BUSH'S SECRET TRIP via that great patriot, Drudge. He also has an article about how bush upstaged Sen. Clinton. I still find that simply hilarious. The POTUS did this to upstage a woman, a U.S. senator, a CLINTON!!!
Check out Bill Moyers on DemocracyNow! today.
Very good speech on the media.
"Journalist Bill Moyers recently gave the keynote address before 2,000 people at the first ever National Conference on Media Reform. He warned, "What we’re talking about is nothing less than rescuing a democracy that is so polarized it is in danger of being paralyzed and pulverized. Alarming words, I know. But the realities we face should trigger alarms. Free and responsible government by popular consent just can't exist without an informed public."
Bill Moyers, host of the weekly PBS news program "Now with Bill Moyers", speaking at the National Confernence on Media Reform in Madison, Wisc."
For more about the effect of media on democracy see Amy Goodman's "Independent Media in a Time of War
The class-act that sent them into war zone he created by listening to neo-con nutjobs . . . class-act all the way.
It’s been a tradition for decades for commanders to serve chow on special days like these.
Then please explain, Anon, why it was such a surprise that this man did this? Were the expectations that he would not do it? I think so, and now the press is wetting all over itself (themselves?) because he finally did something truly presidential and C-I-C-like!
Hi, Jim H, CMSgt USAF ret.
How do you feel about Bush deserting the National Guard during the Vietnam War? Let's hear the opinion of a vet.
"Bush only appears in public with groups he knows will show enthusiastic approval: very young children, high-level Republicans in government, and carefully selected members of the military (i.e., live, healthy ones who know how to behave around the Commander in Chief). The level of secrecy and scripting is increasingly reminiscent of the old Soviets or ChiComs.
frabjous | 11.28.03 - 12:25 pm | #"
That was Reagan's modus operandi as well.
I think that it is interesting that under Republicans, security is always tightened and access becomes higly restricted, but und Democrats things are far more opened and relaxed. What's up with that?
Along with chow, he served up hot, blazing, 24-hour endangerment to their lives. Nice.
"===========
Typical response from the intellectually insecure. I apologize for trying to help you polish your language and beomce smarter about the issues.
Anonymous | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 12:20 pm | #"
"..and" what about the issues?
[[I think that it is interesting that under Republicans, security is always tightened and access becomes higly restricted, but und Democrats things are far more opened and relaxed.]]
Fact or impression?
"..and" what about the issues?
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 12:34 pm | #
======
Please speak coherently if you wish a response.
"Hear, hear, anonymous!
That's a great idea - call those CongressPeople and Senators and candidates and tell them to
Say It Loud
We're Dumb and Proud!
Bush Lied and He's a coward, too!!
THAT'll get votes, you bet...
tomaig | Email | 11.28.03 - 11:59 am | #"
It doesn't bother you that he lied to get us into the war, and then lied about his reasons after we were in, and is now using the troops for his onw campaing photo-op? What kind of Rupublican piece of shit are you? You should be ashamed.
From this article on the visit at
">http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/03/11/28/
17819244.cfm:
Bush served mashed potatoes for 10 minutes and then ducked into a meeting with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Bremer, Sanchez and four members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Then, 2 1/2hours after he arrived, he was off.
So how much time did Bush actually spend with the troops? Anybody know? Was it a ten minute photo op carving the turkey, and then off to the real business of carving up Iraq with Chalabi?
"State some basic facts, get the terminology straight, don't take sides, and... get called a Nazi on Eschaton.
Par for the course.
Anonymous | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 12:14 pm | #"
If the shoe fits...
Let's hope that it does boost the morale of the troops! They certainly need it. I agree let's move on, and this still doesn't change the situation on the ground in Iraq. The ultimate irony that the secrecy, short duration, and nature of the trip should underscore is the fact that the Iraq War coverage that Shrubco was complaining about as being misleading and unfair, is in reality quite true after all.
If the shoe fits...
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 12:38 pm | #
Yawn.
Bush's little trip to Iraq = one of the most expensive campaign stunts ever. And one of the most hypocritical and sickening I've ever seen.
It won't help him that much. There was a letter to the editor this morning from a Republican who is extremely upset with the fact that government spending has grown to 12.5% under Bush. As the writer pointed out, he hated to say it, but Clinton held government spending in check and was much more responsible. My Republican husband agreed when I read part of the letter to him, and said: "I'm not happy at all with any of this."
So, the sentimental may be swayed momentarily over this "tear in the eye" photo op. But those disaffected Republicans out there aren't sentimental folks, and they are fed up, along with the rest of us.
"Please speak coherently if you wish a response.
Anonymous | Homepage | 11.28.03 - 12:36 pm | #"
Your reading is as piss poor as your writing and reasoning. I was pointing out how unintelligible your earlier post was. But what was really funny about it was that you were criticizing someone else's intellect, but were incapable of putting a coherent thought together in the process.
So, back to basics: Do you really support Bush, even after all the lies and perfidy? If so, why should we think of you as anything but the vile peice of shit that you seem to be?
Peanut makes a case against your comments that he didn't meet with the Iraqi Governing Council.
Good Job on getting the rest of the story.
What is truly pathetic is that the POOTUS performs his first commendable act in more than two years, driving the right-wing nutters all over the blogosphere to bleat about what a hero he is.
How desperate can they be for favorable news about this administration?
Of course, you realize that if something had gone wrong, we might have had a 'military government' or a dick for a POOTUS.....
True, emal. The actions speak volumes that Rumsghoul could not.
The trip is an excellent metaphor for the whole war for which Bush LIED in order to embroil us in.
'My Republican husband agreed when I read part of the letter to him, and said: "I'm not happy at all with any of this."'
A real American. Not like the trolls that fester here this morning.
[[Your reading is as piss poor as your writing and reasoning. I was pointing out how unintelligible your earlier post was. But what was really funny about it was that you were criticizing someone else's intellect, but were incapable of putting a coherent thought together in the process.]]
Evidence? None, as usual.
Keep ranting.
I wish atrios would give us something else to talk about.
Yawn!
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/
Poll on Baghdad trip...scroll down, to the right
The question for them, though, is a "lesser evil" one...
Not really. Almost all Republicans would not vote Dem this year, but most Rs I know are disgusted with Bush, most of them will hold their nose and vote for him anyway, but if only a few percentage points worth decide to stay home, Bush will lose. The Republican base is smaller but more active. It *needs* to be excited because it *needs* to come out to win.
[[So, back to basics: Do you really support Bush]]
As I've stated many, many times, the day Bush is voted rom office will be celebrated as a holiday until the end of my life.
Anything else, dumbshit?
The turkey Bush was holding wasn't even carved. I wonder if he carved it?
Meanwhile the US casualty rate from Bush's War continues to climb:
"Nearly 10,000 U.S. troops have been killed, wounded, injured or become ill enough to require evacuation from Iraq since the war began, the equivalent of almost one Army division, according to the Pentagon."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/c...ews/
7368173.htm
If Lieutenant AWOL wants to impress me, he can start by marching over to the Pentagon, firing Rummy and cleaning out that nest of neo-con nut jobs who can't seem to do anything but make matters worse (and snivel about media coverage), and putting somebody in charge who has a plan to stop this nonsense.
Right, anonymous. There's no need for you to take this abuse. Just go away and ignore us forever.
It's simple. The surprise of it makes it a bigger news story. If he had just gone, then it's no big deal. But when it's a secret road trip _ and just a few reporters are invited _ that ups the "ooh" factor and gets people talking. Masterful PR move.
Correction to yesterday's story. All of our spell checkers were out of office so the story about Bush's trip to Iraq was unprecedented should really have read:
Bush trip to Iraq was unPresidented.
We regret the error.
Another Bush lie:
He repeats the Iraq-terrorist lie when speaking to the troops:
"You are here fighting terrorists so that we do not have to fight them at home."
How many people think that a single act of terrorism was averted by this illegal invasion?
Not meeting a single Iraqi or the Iraqi Council is telling, as pointed out in the messages above. If I were on the Council, I'd quit. "I'm risking my ass and he publicly humiliates me by not meeting with us." It was the ultimate disrespect. That is how the Iraqis will see it.
This trip will knock alot of people off the fence who were starting to doubt Bush. It was brilliant, because most were under the turkey drugging effect, this story is just extra glazing.
And he sneaks in and out under cover of darkness. Like a ....
"Hail to the Thief!"
[[why should we think of you as anything but the vile peice of shit that you seem to be?]]
You are projecting on to me your unfocused rage and simply ignoring what I am posting. That's the only reasonable explanation.
Unlike you and many other people, I want Bush to lose because of the facts and reason, not because of lies and hysteria.
I apply that to all aspects of my life. Why don't you?
Yankeedoodle: Nearly 10,000 U.S. troops have been killed, wounded, injured or become ill enough to require evacuation from Iraq since the war began, the equivalent of almost one Army division, according to the Pentagon."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/c...ews/
7368173.htm
That is the real "turkey" being served to the troops.
[[Almost all Republicans would not vote Dem this year, but most Rs I know are disgusted with Bush, most of them will hold their nose and vote for him anyway]]
That's exactly what I said. We are in agreement.
Do you think they trust him with carving knives? I mean if a pretzel...
Such weeping! Such wailing! Such gnashing of teeth! Such disconnect from reality!
Y'all just keep seething, OK?
Right, anonymous. There's no need for you to take this abuse. Just go away and ignore us forever.
mike in pr | Email | 11.28.03 - 12:58 pm | #
========
One more sheep.
That's exactly what I said. We are in agreement.
Reading comprehension problems, anony? You can get help with that.
I had a great Thanksgiving; we always go to some friends' house - she and I share the cooking, and her husband's father always is with us. He is 86, a very proud veteran of WWII. The first thing he said when he came in was to ask if that was my car out front. I said it was. He said: "I really like your bumper sticker, and I really agree with it." The sticker is "Bush Lied: People Died." I gave him an extra hug, and he said: "I hate that little pipsqueak."
Made my whole day.
Best novel about trolls:
Franz Kafka's "The Castle"
K. needs to get to the Castle but various villagers start telling him tales and distracting him and getting him involved in their own lives. Villager: "We all belong to the Castle."
It has been criticized because it has no conclusion, but the last 20-30 pages the distractions start accelerating. You know he'll never make it.
Ignore the villagers, they belong to the Castle.
[[Reading comprehension problems, anony?]]
Nope.
[[Ignore the villagers]]
Spoken like a true modern Democrat.
It's fun to speculate on the spin-pundit-politico firestorm that would have been precipitated had the news of the trip leaked out while Bush was enroute.
Rove would have had to decide whether it would be better to abort and blame the Democrats, or carry on in a display of unprecedented presidential bravery. Where was Rove? On board? or back home ready to launch the propaganda offensive?
[[Reading comprehension problems, anony?]]
Nope.
Willfully obtuse? Why would you make that sort of mistake? It's not like you.
anytime a ritewinger DARES to say anything about the SCLM, they should be laughed off and shown just how whorish they have become. all they are is lapdogs to power.
I wouldn't count on most Republicans holding their noses and voting for Bush.
I wouldn't count on that at all.
[[Where was Rove? On board?]]
No, we wouldn't want to risk the life of America's leader.
[[Willfully obtuse?]]
As many people have made clear, Eshaton is a place for substantive, on-topic discourse. If you wish to engage in petty personal attacks, please go to my "Homepage" and share your views there. It's for people like you, part of my rapidly expanding fan base.
Keep your gutter talk off of this fine space, please.
It's all much ado about nothing if you ask me. I've got nothing against Bush for doing this. Yeah, it's politically motivated, but who cares. It's a nice gesture for those troops he did see. What was it, 600 out of the 150k deployed? But the excitement will be long worn off by the time election day rolls around. As this Long, Hard Slog slogs on over the next few months, folks will be saying to themselves "No wonder he only stayed two hours and never left the airport." Hell, by Christmas this will be ancient history and he'll have to come up with something else to take voters' minds off the huge mess he's made.
Man, it'd be really nice if Atrios would just do IP bans on the trolls...
Drudge has what are supposed to be WP reporter Mike Allen's private notes posted at his site. My favorite paragraph reads:
At about 10:55 a.m. Eastern, the pool was taken out and put in the vans. As we passed a military police Humvee, a soldier helmeted soldier who was working in the dark and mud while other dined inside, "You all know the Third ID is still here, right?" A huge cheer was heard from inside as the President left and the vehicles rolled at 10:58 a.m. Eastern.
Did the monkey-boy purposely visit only the troops that have been in country a short time?
Also, IMO, this trip was taken for no other reason than to prevent Hillary from showing up the moron-in-chief.
wow we got to trip toe around this whole thing, it should give everybody a heads up as to what we will have to do at the election. we cant realy on the media to give us the truth.
Man, it'd be really nice if Atrios would just do IP bans on the trolls...
Tabris | Email | 11.28.03 - 1:21 pm | #
=======
It would be nice if he set some standards and applied them with an even hand. You want that? I do.
I wouldn't count on most Republicans holding their noses and voting for Bush.
I wouldn't count on that at all.
Right now it seems that way, but I'll bet when November comes around, a healthy majority will switch back to him. Problem is a mere majority won't be enough to save him.
I asked a simple question about the *discussion on this thread*? are you really unable to answer? I'm starting to think "willfully obtuse" hits the mark pretty darned well. Are you trolling?
[[I asked a simple question about the *discussion on this thread*? are you really unable to answer?]]
Quit talking about the question, which no one can discern, and simply ask the question.
[[Are you trolling?]]
No, but you are.
Take it outside, please.
[[I asked a simple question about the *discussion on this thread*? are you really unable to answer?]]
Quit talking about the question, which no one can discern, and simply ask the question.
Uhm...can you not recognize a question when you see one? You seem to have misunderstood almost every post to which you've responded.
[[Uhm...can you not recognize a question when you see one? You seem to have misunderstood almost every post to which you've responded.]]
Yep, you're trolling. If you weren't, you'd ask the question.
I agreed with your position, yet you want to do this.
Num Lock = Troll
Thanks for confirming it. Are you "Monkey" as well?
For the record, drudge says (via Mike Allen of the WaPo's notes, if you can trust all that) that Bush met with SOME Governing Council members--or was SCHEDULED to:
The President was to meet with four Iraq Governing Council members, including Mr. Chalabi, according to a senior coalition official. The President rode a very brief motorcade to an office building, where he met with the Iraq Governing Council members upstairs.
Go quick. It might be gone any second. drudge's site is weird...it keeps refreshing the page every sixty seconds or so.
Later,
Via Cursor: Charles Pierce quote:
"It remains a mystery to me how they manage to get the whole White House press corps onto the back of that turnip truck to bring them to work every morning."
I thought they smelled funny.
On-topic with respect to earlier point about party identification:
http://pollingreport.com/institu...tical%
20Parties
Interesting.
I agreed with your position, yet you want to do this.
So you *do* understand the question, you were just fooling. Now that we're clear on this, you can go back and find the mistake in your conclusion. Or perhaps you've changed your position in the last few minutes?
I'll give you a hint: "I agreed with your position" is incorrect. See if you can guess why?
Misplaced Patriot
Great one!
Look, up in the sky. It's a bird. It's a plane. It's a Fraud!
It's Turkey Man!
[[I'll give you a hint: "I agreed with your position" is incorrect.]]
No, it's not. I'm done with this exercise in meaninglessness.
From drudge:
"The President did not eat while the journalists were in."
I was hoping to get idependent verification of Condi's story to Oprah that he eats fast. Maybe next time.
"The President was wearing blue shirt, dark slacks and a PT (Physical Training) jacket bearing the patch of the First Armored Division (Old Ironsides)."
So now he thinks he's a tank soldier. I guess he got tired of playing fighter pilot.
I take back my comment that he did not meet with the Governing Council, but wonder why no photos of that. Plus, Chalabi, I thought he was already on Bush's shitlist. The "was to meet" phrasing is a little strange to me.
"I asked a simple question about the *discussion on this thread*? are you really unable to answer? I'm starting to think "willfully obtuse" hits the mark pretty darned well. Are you trolling?
Num Lock | 11.28.03 - 1:25 pm | #"
Willfully? No. Obtuse by nature.
"We looked like a normal couple," Bush said of himself and Rice.
For the sake of coherent discussion and focus on both this and future threads, could we all agree on two things?
1) It is pointless to denounce trolls. Real trolls know who they are and exactly what they're doing. You are doing nothing but giving them insight as to your own hot-buttons when you respond.
2) Don't feed the trolls.
http://
www.democraticunderground...topic_id=789804
Take a real good look at the people in the pictures with Bush.
Do they look happy? Are most smiling?
Do most look ready to frag his ass?
Too bad you can't post pics here.
Oh well.
Interesting that Chalabi wasn't, according to the account I watched on the Seattle news last night, one of the "5 people who knew" about Bush's trip, yet he was there in the audience. Must have been a coincidence.
My favorite part of that news story was when the anchor said, in gushing tones, that Bush had vowed that if word had gotten out about the trip, he was ready to turn the plane around and go home instead. She presented this thought as if it were somehow proof of his resolve and gutsy approach.
Hey, we know he's always ready to run (uh, oh... sorry Mr. President, Dixie Chicks lyrics) -- just look at 9/11.
Maybe it was more moral clarity -- I get confused about these things lately.
Always watch out for civilian leaders making public appearances in military clothing. It is the preeminent symbol of fascism.
I didn't get the impression from the press that Bush had done a heroic act but a compassionate act. The only place I am finding the "Bush the Brave" meme are left wing web sites desperate to bash Bush for doing the right thing.
Absolute bullshit. The only thing I can guess is that you failed to watch the morning news shows. On Today, Matt Lauder thought this was the freakin' bravest thing any president has done in the history of this country. It was disgusting to watch.
Don't feed the trolls.
Peanut
If everyone who disagrees with anothers opinion is a troll, then everyone at some point is a troll.
Troll is an overused buzzword.
It used mainly by people with shit for a response.
Those same people that use Ad Hominem attack replies.
Stupid is as stupid does.
"It is like playing the last $100 dollar bill at the casino," Maariv said in an editorial, adding that "only one thing can ensure victory for Bush at the November 2004 polls: Saddam Hussein dead or chained up."
QrazyQat: another seattleite?
I am up on Cap Hill myself right this instant, watching the rain ...
Boy some of the commenters here are mean spirited. I think Bush is in the running for worst president ever, but the trip to Iraq was a class act. Sure it was PR, but he did put his ass on the line to carry it out, and the guy who sometimes seems like a deer in the headlights in front of the cameras did a perfect Bob Hope interpretation.
And to those who would denigrate his bravery, sure security was tight, but we've all seen how much that means in today's Iraq. Only last week a rocket shot out the engine of a landing airplane, and they even took a video of it to show how much they think of our security.
Kid Charlemagne: I posted to the other thread on this subject about that very article.
The Manchester Guardian (UK) has that story as well, and one other which is more disquieting, here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/
0...,423009,00.html
Aside from the missing Mission Accomplished banner, this was the USS Lincoln prance all over again with the added mind altering influence of tryptophan. If you're anyone having turkey on TG, you have something to be thankful for! AWOL gets to wear military drag and get the war party lathered up and masturbating again -- it hasn't been a good few 2nd half for them -- and the media get to wax nostalgic about the good old days (April) when it was a cakewalk instead of a goatfuck. Once again, everyone gets something but the poor bastards who have to pay for BushCo vanity with their lives, be they US/coalition or Iraqis.
Sorry 'bout the tags:
Aside from the missing Mission Accomplished banner, this was the USS Lincoln prance all over again with the added mind altering influence of tryptophan. If you're anyone having turkey on TG, you have something to be thankful for! AWOL gets to wear military drag and get the war party lathered up and masturbating again -- it hasn't been a good few 2nd half for them -- and the media get to wax nostalgic about the good old days (April) when it was a cakewalk instead of a goatfuck. Once again, everyone gets something but the poor bastards who have to pay for BushCo vanity with their lives, be they US/coalition or Iraqis.
The best thing about Bush's little PR stunt is that it successfully ushered Michael Jackson out of the headlines for a few minutes.
Thompson:
Bush's ass was never on the line. Nor do I give credit to this cynical asshole and the cynical assholes around him for stage managing a TV production in a cynical asshole war they lied to the whole world to start. The troops are getting shot at, mutilated, and killed in bombings for a big lie. And this cynical fucking asshole is exploiting them for TV campaign commercials.
Mean spirited? The most mean spirited assholes in the world are in the White House, and they deserve every iota of contempt and vitriol they get from people who can see them for what they are.
how much tax money will start coming out of my paycheck's to cover the cost of this?
To cover the cost of what? Bush's taxpayer-subsdized campaign commercials?
As if 175 million dollars in private donations for a "primary campaign" in which Bush has no opposition was not enough of a hegemonic fundraising advantage, the cynical fucking assholes are using my tax money to lie to me some more.
[[how much tax money will start coming out of my paycheck's to cover the cost of this?]]
Assuming 100 million taxpayers sharing an equal burden (unrealistic, but let that go), each $1 million the Feds pisses away costs you about a penny, if you're a taxpayer. If it's financed with debt, it's probably more like a penny and a half.
"The Governing Council has 25 members -- Shrub saw 4 members ... When does 4 equal 25???? If you are going to attack --- etc.
You got to do betting than that. If you have to engage in verbal gymnastics to defend such a glaring error, it won't cut it. He met with the head of the Governing Council and three members. He with council members. Atrios said he did not along with locals. Bush did both.
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 11:47 am | #"
You're breaking up.... Time for another beer.
OHHHH????
Seems as though everytime the shrubettes wish to make a point "clarifying" or "setting the record straight" ---they hair-split and weasel-word.....
Let's hear you denounce the practice when Rummy pulls it ---
THEN you MAY rise above the craven troll status you now gurgle in.......
Always watch out for civilian leaders making public appearances in military clothing. It is the preeminent symbol of fascism. --Copernicus
I've read that this is standard for all of Bush's speeches to military audiences. He wear's the military insignia relevant to the troops present and jokes about or otherwise references their battalion history and/or slogans. It's all part of the normal event staging with this WH. I would imagine that it is pretty effective in whipping up the enthusiasm of the troops, at least while the cameras are present.
I agree with you that this is one of the many signs of creeping fascism we see from the Bush admin. I believe Orcinus has covered the topic also.
I dunno... he took a risk, but compared to past presidents who flew into war zones/occupied countries, it was a much smaller risk. It was completely secret.
Once again w has lowered the bar. Its very common for the president to visit troops overseas in combat. Its never been considered big news, or heroic before. Just business as usual.
I was watching on CNN and saw him serving up chow. It’s been a tradition for decades for commanders to serve chow on special days like these.
Uh huh. Maybe Hillary should go visit some wounded troops or the families of dead soldiers in NY.
Maybe that is what it will take to motivate, or shame, Der Chimpenfuhrer to continue THAT decades-long tradition.
Watching the reaction of the common G.I. (you can’t B.S. them, they’ll see through it every time!) and the respect they show makes it very clear to me this man is worthy to be Commander in Chief.
uh huh. So, when Bush/Cheney promised the troops 'help is on the way' shortly after their selection to office, and then they cut veterans' benefits, cut hazardous duty pay, charged wounded soldiers $8 a day for their hospital meals, dragged out tours of duty even for reservists who thought they were signing up for "one weekend a month"...
...tell me, have they seen through the BS yet?
The troops have a BS de
Copernicus - You are dead on.
Those who actually believe that most Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Bush after he has wasted yet another untold amount of money on this 18 hour photo op don't know any actual Republicans. I'm not talking about the RR or the extremist wing of the total wingnut party. I'm talking about real Republicans.
They are not pleased.
The troops have a BS detector alright... except when it comes to a GOP President. Then, they have a huge blind spot.
Anyone who deserts his military service at a time of war, is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.
Anyone who encourages the enemy to kill our soldiers ("Bring 'em on!") is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.
Anyone who pumps his arm and exclaims, "Feels good!" at the moment he is sending our troops into war, is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.
He shoulda gotten that blood test while he was on base. Who knows, maybe he could still qualify as a fighter pilot. Unless there's another election in Alabama, of course.
WaPo:
"Air Force One has a wide array of countermeasure capabilities for foiling surface-to-air missiles, some of which have never been disclosed to the public," Thompson said. "It is the closest thing we have to an invulnerable aircraft in terms of dealing with surface-to-air threats."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...-
2003Nov27.html
Hey, Peanut at 2:00 pm. I'd noticed that someone else had begun posting here at Atrios with my handle. I've got no quarrel with either your politics or your writing (you do your fellow nuts proud), but I think I was here first. Would you mind becoming "Peanut II", or "peanut", or even "Peanut Improved"?
No hostility intended, just to reduce coversational confusion.
Why keep responding to Anonymous?
S/he is entitled to her/his opinion and it isn't going to be changed here. S/he has demonstrated a consistent antagonistic view toward the opinions of others on this board. The number one priority on her/his agenda appears to be rudeness, a typical behavior for aggressive right wingers. I tend to ignore people like this because they are a waste of energy. Those I've met personally have tended to be chemically dependent or emotionally troubled (for a public example witness Rush). They are in need of help and aren't worth arguing with. I don't say this because I disagree with her/his opinions, though I do. I say this because the forum in which this person has chosen to express them is somewhat self-defeating, clearly a behavior of a person with self-loathing.
Is there anyway that everyone on this board can simply let her/him starve from lack of attention?
If s/he offered any meaningful contribution or valuable desent it would be wor
"...tell me, have they seen through the BS yet?"
No, I guess not. Thank God we have such astute and shrewd observers such as you to point out to those poor deluded troops what the truth REALLY is.
PLEASE TAKE THIS POLL
HERE at the Charlie Rose Show
Poll
Does the U.S need the UN to win the peace in Iraq?
Yes
No
Currently the results are not good.
Results:
Does the U.S need the UN to win the peace in Iraq?
Yes
48%
No
52%
15016 Votes
I really don't see how the Iraqis will ever have freedom with the fair market they would allowed are that the UN could offer the people of Iraq.
Please change that poll number.
Absolute bullshit. The only thing I can guess is that you failed to watch the morning news shows. On Today, Matt Lauder (sic) thought this was the freakin' bravest thing any president has done in the history of this country. It was disgusting to watch.
"Morning news shows" is an oxymoron and there is no way in hell you can call Matt Lauer' a journalist.
Anyone who deserts his military service at a time of war, is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. -- renato
Why do you hate Howard Dean so much???
how much tax money will start coming out of my paycheck's to cover the cost of this?
Same amount that is coming out because of Hillary's trip to two countries.
Hansel goes on a tizzy. 
More than one person post without filling in the Name field, btw.
Chill.
post = posts
Anyone who deserts his military service at a time of war, is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief. -- renato
Why do you hate Howard Dean so much???
Anonymous | 11.28.03 - 2:34 pm | #
And there is an example of what I just said.
Blind rage isn't going to get any of us anywhere. Bush did what leaders are supposed to do, he went into the heart of battle, if only briefly, and provided a real morale boost to the troops that he saw (if only temporarily).
The real issue is, now that we're there (yes, we, everyone living in this country is represented in Iraq, good and bad), how is this going to work. While any action taken by Bush toward making this "work" (ie, boosting troop morale) is welcome, we shouldn't lose focus on what the real issues are (fatalities, threat of a radical government, civil war, terrorists/foregin fighters/Baathist remnants, oh and those pesky WMD).
Bush injected some needed adrenaline into the troops, but that's just a quick fix, soon they'll need another and another. It's pretty easy to spot an addict.
We're still in the shitter as far as Iraq is concerned and nothing short of a policy breakthrough is going to change that. George Bush could move to Iraq, but if so
What I'm about to say could be my most controversial statement here so far...
I believe that Bush MUST be reelected in 2004.
As one who believes that he is a war criminal, you might be wondering "Why?"
My answer is because if he is defeated, whoever replaces him will be blamed for the loss of Iraq in this way:
The Republicans will crush the Democratic President with the charge that it was the Dems stategy that led to the failed policy in Iraq.
"If only we had been given 4 years to complete the job..." is the sort of propaganda that will be used.
The media and intellectual elites will echo this as the correct historical interpretation and condemn the Dems for once again being the party of appeasement - the "weak", "anti-military" party, and so on...
That's why it's essential that Bush win so that the complete illegality and immorality of his policy will land right where it belongs...
Otherwise, his loss will be a godsend for the fascists...
Oops...the end of the post reads:
George Bush could move to Iraq, but if soldiers keep dying, policy keeps failing and Iraqis become really disquieted it will ultimately spell an end to his presidency.
OT:
Who agrees with this?
"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
But Brendan, you shouldn't want an end to his Presidency because of the reasons I put forth before you...
This only lets him and his fellow ideologues off the hook.
They'll blame weakness by the next President for the failure.
Can you imagine the field day the Bill Kristols will have with it?
A thought exercise: rank the following methods of NOT serving the country during the Vietnam War in increasing order of moral outrage.
1) Got academic deferment.
2) Got dubious academic deferment (i.e., went to "divinity school" but did not take up the call to minister)
3) Had high-placed authority get temporary deferment from draft; after deferment had lower draft number
4) Got medical deferrment.
5) Got dubious medical deferment (had bad back, pilodynal cyst, bad football knee).
6) Fled to Canada.
7) Took conscientious objector status.
Served.
9) Had high placed family members pull strings for National Guard placement.
10) Had high placed family members pull strings for National Guard placement, unknown absence for extended time..
We can put politicians into every category except 6. I don't know where I'd put "10" on my list (the George W. Bush case), save that I would rank it very high. Dean's "bad back" would not be ranked as high -- he went in front o
Don't you just love provocative positions?
[[That's why it's essential that Bush win so that the complete illegality and immorality of his policy will land right where it belongs...]]
I think people have had enough time to digest that. No need to prolong the agony. I just pray the Democrats have learned their lesson.
I really don't see how the Iraqis will ever have freedom with the fair market they would allowed are that the UN could offer the people of Iraq. -- Cheryl
Wow! Our public education system at work. I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to communicate. Lets just hope this alcohol abuse and not our education system.
I listen to daytime radio, and the word they are using to describe the stealthy flight in and out is "daring". I find that pretty silly. Who are they tryin' to kid? Some of us might have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. Unless they could have set it up to make sure he wasn't at risk, they wouldn't have gone. (They went, ergo he wasn't)
If this appointistration's history was not peppered with hinky BS then we might give the benefit of the doubt for a "good deed". I don't think it's warranted based on their track record.
Hey, Peanut at 2:00 pm. I'd noticed that someone else had begun posting here at Atrios with my handle. ... No hostility intended, just to reduce coversational confusion.
Peanut | Email | 11.28.03 - 2:23 pm
Hi, Other Peanut.
We must live in alternate universes or have different biorhythms because I've never encountered you here or at the other blogs I read & post to. I'm not sure who was here first -- I'd say I was fresh but not necessarily new -- but I won't dispute your history.
Are you in the shell? Dry-roasted? Salted? I suggest picking a peanut-product identifier (you can email it to me) and so will I, so that neither one of us loses our delightfully nutty quality -- I know, I know, we're legumes, not nuts -- and also neither has to adopt the now loathed Anonymous title.
...of the draft board, they accepted his explanation, case closed.
Whereas in Bush's case, the country was forced to pass up higher qualified applicants to find a place for Bush, forced to spend thousands of dollars on his flight training, and then...disappeared. Where Uncle Sam expected a fighter pilot, he got an empty flight suit. Bush failed the country on multiple levels.
If you want to peg Dean as a draft evader, that's fine. But BUSH is not only an evader, he's a DESERTER. I see that as the worse crime. You can always draft someone else in place of the evader, someone who might be competent. With desertion, you not only waste the country's time, you waste their money as well, much less theoretically put the country on the spot in time of crisis.
This is why I rate Bush's crime the worst of the two. Your mileage may very.
tinheart,
I think the main problem comes with hypocrisy. Being a conscientious objector, or finding some means to avoid service, because you felt that the war was unjust, is justified.
But if you dress and play soldier like Bush, and have extreme hawkish policies, then you better be able to back that up with consistency. It's easy to be "brave" when you've got thousands of people protecting you at all costs. He just didn't want to get busted for drug use and have it go on his military record. His father made sure of that, so that he could leave options open for the "family legacy".
And exactly how will it be better if he loses?
You're not seriously contending that the Dem would then pull US troops out unconditionally are you, unless you believe Kucinich will win, which I doubt you do think.
So how will things change?
How will a Dem make this lemon lemonade?
We can look to the Vietnam war for guidance by taking the inverse of what happened there.
A Republican inherited the war from the Dems and continued the war for another 5 years.
Do you seriously believe that the Dem who beats Bush will feel more or less pressure to escalate the war in order to achieve victory before pulling out?
Operation Iraqi Liberation!
"US troops have allegedly shot dead two young Iraqi sisters near Baqubah, north of Baghdad. Iraqi police and family members say American troops shot the 12-year-old and 15-year-old as they were collecting wood from a field. The older girl died on the spot and her sister died later of her wounds. A policeman claims that US forces handed one of the girls' bodies over to the police "arguing that she had a gun in her possession". Police searched the family home but found nothing suspicious. Coalition forces in Iraq are investigating claims, but have declined to make further comment."
Story here.
Oh yeah, the parents and their friends are so gonna love us...
Compare:
[[I can't even begin to understand what you are trying to communicate.]]
followed by this jumbled sentence:
[[Lets just hope this alcohol abuse and not our education system.]]
[[How will a Dem make this lemon lemonade?]]
I have no idea, but it will certainly involve the cooperation of the international community, and especially the Arab nations.
So I go back to my original point, which is that it is necessary for Bush to win so that blame for this inevitable failure can't be placed elsewhere...
How am I wrong?
tinheart,
One of the problems with ranking like that is that there's a good case to be made that not going into the military for an unjust war is serving your country better than going in. This was one of the positions during the Vietnam war. Denying them cannon fodder during such times is a good, patriotic thing. Going into the service because you agree with the war in question is patriotic, although it might be uninformed. Going in when you don't agree -- is that really a patriotic thing to do? If I was ranking those potential positions during that conflict my top rank would go to those who went to prison rather than be inducted.
I don't know if anyone saw this interview but it was excellent
The Charlie Rose show
Tuesday
JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times
Another 4 years of Bush and will be quiting this war - lost...
We have to go back to UN because Burns said that most countries dislike Americans and that it was necessary to salvage US reputation by staying in Iraq???
I thought it was strange that Burns felt free to give his opinion on may items but the Bush administration as Charlie kept probing for info about how Burns felt. In his way Burns acted more CIA than journalist.
And did anyone notice that at Bush Thanksgiving dinner surpris for the troops, Bush didn’t mention liberation and its no longer talking about liberation ut instead the need for the flypaper theory troops – in that now, our troops are protecting from terrorist that Bush creating with his invasion of Iraq.
This way we cannot stay in Iraq if Bush re-elected – The flypaper theory is a condition Bush created by in
soory about the lenght.
This way we cannot stay in Iraq if Bush re-elected – The flypaper theory is a condition Bush created by invasion and not one that existed prior to invasion. This condition isnt' likely go away, not in 10 years not in 20 years.
So I go back to my original point, which is that it is necessary for Bush to win so that blame for this inevitable failure can't be placed elsewhere...
How am I wrong?
Elias | 11.28.03 - 2:59 pm | #
Because doing the right thing is more important than playing the blame game, and the right thing to do is for the electorate to show GW Bush the door for the many disservices to his country.
Jesus. Bush sneaks into the country in the dead of night, like a filthy rat, surrounded by bodyguards, sticks around for a piddling 2 hours, mugging for the cameras, then sneaks out again. All for an super-expensive photo op at taxpayers' expense. This is "daring"?
This is a textcase example of cynicism at its finest. Can you imagine what the wingnuts - to say nothing of the GOP and "liberal media" - would be saying about this if a Democratic president had done it? Especially one with Bush's record? They'd tear him limb from limb.
Harsh and funny:
"The A&F drones remind me of the group in high school of which I was never a part. While I was rehearsing "The Crucible," they were at lacrosse practice. They threw wild, crazy parties while their neglectful, wealthy parents were out of town skiing. Maybe with the Abercrombie Ski Patrol. Years later, I developed an enormous prejudice and decided these kids were lame and often lazy and their successes were usually owed to their parents' connections and legacies. For some reason that made me think of George Bush."
http://salon.com/sex/feature/200...bie/
index1.html
Just as Kennedy and his staff stated repeatedly throughout the documented record up until his death, Bush too has said that there will be no withdrawal,
WITHOUT A COMPLETE AND TOTAL VICTORY.
That was Kennedy's position 40+ years ago, and it's Bush's now. There will be no withdrawal if Bush is reelected.
There also will certainly be no withdrawal without victory ESPECIALLY if a Democrat is elected precisely so the Dems can't open themselves up to charges of appeasement or weakness...
None of you can challenge this position...
Because doing the right thing is more important than playing the blame game, and the right thing to do is for the electorate to show GW Bush the door for the many disservices to his country.
Which are?
IMO, the right thing to do would be to impeach him for his crimes, convict him, and hand him over to the Haque for a war crimes trial.
I am quite serious. I'm also cognizant of the fact that A. this will never happen, and B. that Bush will in all liklihood win the election.
Monkey, in which case his reelection will ensure that this immoral war will be blamed on him and only him.
that mental defective is incapable of doing "good" unless it's for his own cowardly ass. by the way, he looked stoned to me.
One quick thing I've noticed lately.
It's a new phenomenon that seems to be in its infancy, so pay close attention in the press...
I'll call it the "Neo-nobility of the Vietnamese."
When the comparison to Vietnam comes up for some military analyst, some bristle that the Iraqi resistance is being compared to the NLF. He then claims that the Vietnamese were very disaplined and motivated and were very noble and brave fighters compared with the Iraqi "terrorists."
I guess during the next war in 30 years, the Iraqis will then become noble and the pattern continues...
[[None of you can challenge this position...]]
I have challenged it, and you haven't responded. There's no way to define "victory" against terrorism. It's the same as the "War on Drugs". Bush has framed Iraq as part of the War on Terrorism, so there's really no way of getting complete victory there.
As for the War with the nation-state of Iraq -- clearly that has been over for a long time. There's no Iraqi government, no Hussein in power, no military fighting field battles.
Bush should be gone in 2004 - period.
[[IMO, the right thing to do would be to impeach him for his crimes, convict him, and hand him over to the Haque for a war crimes trial.]]
Well, that's not going to happen, so why fantasize about it as if it were a real possibility?
What Elias fails to note is that Nixon didn't get booted because of Vietnam.
Try another theory, Elias.
QrazyQat,
One of the questions that draft boards used to ask conscientious objectors was how they felt after being told that some other young man would be forced to serve in their place.
That's probably why my ranking would be different that yours. I understand the reasoning behind your position, but even though I detested the Vietnam War (and detest the Iraq War) -- I would most likely serve if called (I'm in a profession where I could be drafted even up to age 40). The reason being that I figure that by going, I save some other young man from being killed. I don't think I could live knowing that someone died so that I didn't have to go.
Tena said Those who actually believe that most Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Bush after he has wasted yet another untold amount of money on this 18 hour photo op don't know any actual Republicans. I'm not talking about the RR or the extremist wing of the total wingnut party. I'm talking about real Republicans.
They are not pleased.
Tena, I think you and Copernicus are right. I know a lot of people who voted for Bush in 2000 (both Republicans and Indys) who say they absolutely will not vote for him again. It's easy to forget sometimes that most Republicans are pretty moderate and don't fall into the wingnut faction. The RR is much more vocal, though, so they create a false impression that their whole party is just as radical. It just isn't so, IMHO. And remember how close the election was in 2000 when nobody knew much about Bush and people thought he was just a regular guy? If anything, he will have a MUCH harder time in 2004. Just MHO.
Too bad the photographers didn't get a shot of Bush as he stepped off the plane after his spiral descent. They might have recorded how he peed his pants. THEN this trip would have been a "good thing."
I liked (not!) where Bush said "I was prepared to turn this baby around" [if word had leaked of the flight]. Yeah, like he was flying the plane himself. Kind of like that Army jacket he got himself photographed in, like he deserves to wear it or something. What a total, 100% phony.
WH 'ho here. I can't tell you whether I was on the trip.
= No, they didn't time it to hit between football games (the AP bulletin, the first news Bush was in Iraq, hit around 10 a.m.)
= Yes, they handpicked reporters. Yes, the A.P. reporter was one of them.
= If you're seriously entertaining the whole "staged photo-op at Fort Hood" scenario, you're beyond help
= If you've put together the "if things are so good in Iraq, what gives with him staying at the airport?" objection...isn't that interesting?
more...
[[If anything, he will have a MUCH harder time in 2004.]]
True, unless Reagan kicks off and/or another biggie terrorist event occurs near Election Day. Unemployment rate is also going to be a factor, though the fear mentality about "bad other people" probably will be much more of a factor than in 2000.
John D. - you are so right that the cynicism Bush has shown by this "gesture" is just stunning. And ever so expensive.
Nixon defeated himself, Elias. He was caught lying over and over. Please get over this - 4 more years of Bush and this country will be irreparably damaged. There is no way in hell that 4 more years of this administration would be anything short of disastrous for all of us, including the U.S. military. Do you really think that getting more military killed is worth making a point? That is just cold, it is ridiculous and it is dead wrong.
Bush's Turkey Day photo-op?
Bush didn't even tell us own wife has leaving to last minute--Gee I wonder that means??
steel
BBC News - 4 hours ago
Speculation is mounting that the US is to cancel - or at least reduce - its controversial steel import tariffs.
Bush decision on steel tariffs seen imminent Forbes
I'm sure Bush went to the UK to tell them to stand down or he would tell American companies to come home offer inventives (tax or cash) and I'm just as sure that Blair said "Fine, we're going to the euro."
Bush bully backed down that one really fast. Bush is losing economic warr for value of the American dollar.
= The administration knew in September that Hillary was going...isn't that interesting? And yes, she left Baghdad airport. And yes, her Afghanistan trip was popular with the troops. But look, love or hate POTUS, he's the commander in chief. When I covered Clinton he got basically the same ovations everywhere he went. C-in-C counts for a lot for the troops, which is why I think Atrios' basic response (this was a good thing for troop morale) is right.
= Fox was, in fact, the TV "pooler" for Thursday, so "hand-picked" isn't 100% right. But it's not too far off, either. CNN was pool for Wednesday (when Bush left), so under tv rules there should have been a tv honcho discussion to decide who would go.
= They made reporters swear a holy oath of silence until Bush left Baghdad. Not unprecedented (TVs never broadcast the departure of warships for the front in real time, either. And TVs have a 10-minute delay for broadcasting Bush's departure from the White House when he travels) though I can see why someone could find fault.
= Bush did meet with four I.G.C. members. ("was to meet" is what you say when it's on the schedule but hasn't happened. you do it that way so your piece is still okay the next day, vs "will meet" or "met."
Elias - Besides, it is Johnson who most often gets the most blame for Vietnam, not Nixon.
Cheryl: Bush did mention that the liberation of Iraq was one of the accomplishments that we couldn't let the insurgents undermine. Unfortunately, none of the liberated masses could be permitted assemble and greet the president. You know how uncomfortable he gets around mass public displays of gratitude. The self-flagellation of the mob makes him feel all icky.
One thing that I alluded to above and, apparently, shot right past everyone is this: Bush's trip ends a week in which the news has strictly been that we not only are losing control in Iraq, we lost it months ago and didn't realize it until October. Now, Bush'st trip has chased away that gloomy announcement to the public. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, by all accounts a pious and studious man, vetoed American plans for the transition in June. Now, he's dictating how the constituent assembly will be formed and insisting that there be a strong role for Shi'a Islam in the new state. The IGC, American puppets all, shifted loyal
Fuck Haloscan.
shifted loyalties after Sistani's first fatwa, not wishing to get caught on the wrong side of the cleric.
Posturing may play well here, but the truth is it was whistling past the graveyard. While in Iraq, Bush was--as he might be, here, only the second most powerful man in the country.
WH 'ho do tell us mo.
tinheart,
I can understand and sympathize with your position on that, but my own position was different. In my view, (neither unique or original, I should add) simply accepting induction helped leave the impression that all was well and all in agreement. Going to prison instead would help dispel that notion, especially among people like friends of your parents, who might not know any "normal" kids who did that. They could be changed in their view, a small change for a large sacrifice, but small changes put together can become big changes. However, I don't now, and I never did, denigrate those who chose any other course -- accepting induction, deferments (legitimate or not), going to Canada or Sweden -- it was a very bad situation with no ideal solution (not unlike the present in that way). The only people I denigrate over their actions then are those who supported the war but went out of their way not to serve -- those people are gutless and contemptible hypocrites.
WH Ho sez: Fox was, in fact, the TV "pooler" for Thursday, so "hand-picked" isn't 100% right. But it's not too far off, either.
This, to me, is one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole escapade. Was there another time in history when a sitting president gave an "exclusive" of this magnitude to one "news" outlet, particularly one that's so obviously biased toward said president? Or is this what they mean when they say Bush's trip was "unprecedented"?
NYT reported that bush was traveling in disguise ... and here it is
Brian C.B. - that wasn't lost on me. And interestingly enough, it wasn't lost on that liberal bastion, the Dallas Morning News. Today, Bush's trip was on the front page, though not the lead story, and on the editorial page they ran Richard Cohen's editorial in which he points out every single lie that got us into Iraq and what a mess this administration has made of the whole thing.
"Morning news shows" is an oxymoron and there is no way in hell you can call Matt Lauer' a journalist.
Although it does not pass my smell test, so what? There are enough Americans that get their news from such sources that my point still stands. The TV has been full of nothing but how brave George has been in going to such a dangerous place.
Bwahahahaha, I knew I could not say that with a straight face.
Queen Crab: You misunderstand how this works. Fox doesn't get an 'exclusive' from this. They have to provide the tape to CNN and the other nets in Baghdad. They just have to do more work and then let the other nets get, in effect, the credit.
What happens is that Fox shoots the event, then hands off the tape to a pool production team that feeds it to all the nets, who get to use it as their own (they don't have to credit Fox). And believe me, Jim Angle is a pro, and he plays it straight.
Also, I don't know who called the trip "unprecedented," considering that virtually every news outlet ran a box on previous presidential travel to war zones.
Elias, what a great idea!! let's re-elect the boob so he can fuck up the country some more. Think I'll pass on that one.
And believe me, Jim Angle is a pro, and he plays it straight.
Like a white house stenographer should...
We must live in alternate universes or have different biorhythms because I've never encountered you here or at the other blogs I read & post to. -- Peanut
Hello Fellow Peanut,
Would that be the bizarro universe where the Supremes didn't play fairy godmother to little Georgie, and we aren't now sinking slowly into an Iraqi quagmire? I visit there in my dreams sometimes.
Are you in the shell? Dry-roasted? Salted? I suggest picking a peanut-product identifier (you can email it to me) and so will I, so that neither one of us loses our delightfully nutty quality -- I know, I know, we're legumes, not nuts -- and also neither has to adopt the now loathed Anonymous title.
Agreed. I will spend too much time over-thinking the name possibilities and email you the result. And yes, the good name of Anonymous has been sullied by trolls, hasn't it?
WH 'ho. Thanks for the behind-the-scenes explanation. I don't remember who exactly used the word "unprecedented." It may have been on one of the many TV and radio accounts I heard yesterday. The Philadelphia Inquirer this morning in one of the two front page stories about it, did call it "extraordinary." Not quite, the same thing, I agree.
Appreciate your dispatches, WH 'ho.
When can we expect a press update on the Plame matter?
Re: using "Anonymous" -
One more commenter starts in using "Anonymous" and it will sink the entire internet, or what's left of my sanity.
When can we expect a press update on the Plame matter?
Yes. When I last saw WH 'ho, he/she/it was desperately trying to explain why the press corpsl was so busy on a day to day basis that the difficulty of reporting on the Plame story was - sigh - just too difficult.
Hopefully now WH 'ho can explain why the story has disappeaed again. My guess: The WH agreed to tell the press who leaked Plame's identity...but they promised not to reveal it for 50 years.
WH 'ho I too thank you for your information. Sometimes it is much more fascinating to read about the workings behind the scenes of event than to witness the actual event itself. Thanks!
Musing graze: Not much movement there right now because DoJ has put a real muzzle on its investigators. But there should be something new-ish in print by late next week.
Don't hold me to it, though.
I think what Elias is saying makes a certain amount of sense. I've been concerned myself that a Dem president would get stuck with and blamed for BushCo's mess.
I still say we've got to get Bush out of office, but there will be hell to pay for the Democrat that replaces him. It's gonna take a couple of years for the scope of the disaster BushCo is leaving us in the eviroment, energy situation, infrastructure, healthcare -- hell, everything -- to become obvious to most people. And when people do notice? They'll blame whoever's in office at the moment.
I'd hate to see the Dems reap the whirlwind the Repubs sowed. How many times will we be able to say "Bush's fault" before everybody just rolls their eyes at the sound of it?
The visit was just another chance for Bush to play "dress-up". I expect him to appear in Navy whites any day now.
Valerie Plame? Who's that? Did she have sex with Michael Jackson?
WH 'ho - I'll keep my eyes peeled for it then. Thanks.
Don't hold me to it, though.
You kidder, you. Of course we will!
Space: That's right. It's a conspiracy of silence. We ALL know who leaked and we've just decided not to report it because, while it would make an individual reporter's career and virtually guarantee fame and fortune while bringing immeasurable prestige to their news outlet, the White House kool-aid is just too tasty.
The Nation and The American Prospect are especially eager to stay closecloseclose to the White House, while Washington Monthly and the Associated Press are actually run by Karl Rove. So, you see, you'll never hear another word about this unless we learn the leaker was actually Ted Kennedy. Sorry!
(the story has disappeared because the DoJ is doing such a good job keeping its investigators clammed up, and the CIA people who fed the beast for a while have stopped talking)
[[while it would make an individual reporter's career and virtually guarantee fame and fortune while bringing immeasurable prestige to their news outlet, the White House kool-aid is just too tasty]]
OK -- that doesn't make sense.
WH'ho - let me add my thanks to you for hanging at Atrios and giving us all a little taste of information.
Those who actually believe that most Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Bush after he has wasted yet another untold amount of money on this 18 hour photo op don't know any actual Republicans. I'm not talking about the RR or the extremist wing of the total wingnut party. I'm talking about real Republicans.
I dunno, Tena... my hunch is that you could convene that group in a phone booth with room enough left over for a few red dog Democrats.
Republicans have a history, over the last several decades, of having the discipline to support candidates whom in great numbers they detest and disrespect while Democrats industriously vivisect those of their own about whom they entertain vague qualms.
BTW, I'm getting really confused by all this 'dueling Anonymouses' stuff. Lucky thing neither of them seems to be saying anything worth reading.
'dueling Anonymouses'
I guess "Anonymice" would be the preferred term, wouldn't it?
Steve LG says: Republicans have a history, over the last several decades, of having the discipline to support candidates whom in great numbers they detest and disrespect while Democrats industriously vivisect those of their own about whom they entertain vague qualms.
Why do you suppose the Republicans vote for candidates they detest and disrespect, and what does this have to do with discipline? The only reason I can think of is because they foolishly believe there will be a greater reward for them later on. IMHO, the more moderate Republicans are becoming disabused of this fallacy. Tena's seeing it in Texas. I'm seeing it in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. I'll bet it's happening in many of the other 47 states as well.
Although, I do agree (sadly) with Steve's Democratic vivesection comment.
Tena, Queen: You're welcome.
Look, there are many valid criticisms of the DC press corps (I'd prefer you read Somerby over MWO). But there are also many misunderstandings and many silly criticisms, and I'm here to clear up both of those.
BTW, I'm getting really confused by all this 'dueling Anonymouses' stuff. Lucky thing neither of them seems to be saying anything worth reading.
SteveLG | Email | 11.28.03 - 4:36 pm | #
Look there! Another person looking for a convenient whipping boy, without adding anything to the conversation.
Go to my Homepage, baby -- it's for people just like you.
Why do you suppose the Republicans vote for candidates they detest and disrespect, and what does this have to do with discipline?
It would have been more accurate for me to have written "detest or disrespect." Many R's regarded Reagan in a patronizing way but few actually detested him, and many more detest Tom DeLay, but no one 'disses' The Hammer and lives to tell about it. Bush pere et fil hit the Daily Double.
It has to do, I think, with a certain seriousness about the uses of power. I have the feeling that when Democrats win an election they stand around going "Wow, we won! What should we do?" Republicans already have their agendas and marching orders. All they require is the right suit at the right desk... no matter who it is.
Sure, it's a gross generalization, but it plays out oftener than not.
Did anyone notices how deeply furrowed Paul Bremer's eyebrows were?
That guy was in pain. I think he's praying that Bush lose the 2004 election.
SteveLG - My husband votes mostly Republican, but he isn't a wingnut, though he and I differ completely on the the war. But he has had it with Bush. I live in the heart of Republican land, and I expect Bush to carry Texas, but I have heard less and less support among old style conservatives for this administration. The letters to the editor of the Dallas Morning News are a pretty good indication of that.
The fiscal mess this administration has made is not lost on honest to god Goldwater fiscal conservative Republicans. And those people are not interested in or swayed by weeping presidents serving turkey.
You might be surprised how many of those kinds of Republicans there are, as opposed to the lock-step Republicans. And no matter what you think, the RR is a minority, and not liked by non RR christians.
From Reuters, Aides Prodded Reluctant Bush on Iraq Trip :
"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 "mad
The fiscal mess this administration has made is not lost on honest to god Goldwater fiscal conservative Republicans. And those people are not interested in or swayed by weeping presidents serving turkey.
Tena, you nailed it. Well put.
{cont'd}
the DHL incident "made people go back and take a look at whether we thought the plane would be safe going in."
So much for the myth of presidential derring-do.
queen crab - you can get an indication of which way the wind is blowing when you hear conservative voters, like the many I know, saying that they miss Clinton's economic policies.
You might be surprised how many of those kinds of Republicans there are, as opposed to the lock-step Republicans.
I would indeed be surprised, although I certainly hope you are right. My suspicion, as I've already said, is that the great majority of them will find the wherewithal to swallow back the revulsion which, I agree, GWB engenders, and pull the red lever next November.
Speaking of Red and Blue, my horrific premonition is that, because of redistricting, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that GWB could lose the popular vote in 2004 by an even wider margin than he did in 2000 and still score a clean win (unlike last time) in the electoral college.
Can you say, "shadow government," boys and girls? Interesting times...
SteveLG - re: dueling anonymouses
You got it - ignoring them all is about the only way to navigate these waters these days.
Republican discipline was forged by being out of power in Congress (except for a couple of sessions) from 1932 to 1994. They learned their lessons the hard way for 60 years. It is fascinating to me to see that the Dems have been out of power for almost ten years now and still can't get their act together.
I think that the ultimate example of the party's fecklessness is the way they handled the Clinton impeachment. If the party had forced Clinton to resign (as the Republicans did Nixon) we would have elected an incumbent President Gore and I believe the party would at least have control of the Senate.
THe party needs to realize that the party and the country are more important than particular individuals. Look what the Republicans did to Gingrich and Livingstone.
When can we expect a press update on the Plame matter?
WH 'ho: Perhaps I was being to sarcastic by half. I wasn't really suggesting that the press corps is sitting on what they clearly know.
However, it is abundantly clear that the press corps is not doing nearly enough digging on this story. I mean, how long exactly do you think this investigation should take? You really can't find out who has been called to answer FBI questions? You can't find out what other journalists (besides Novak and Mitchell) were contacted by any administration officials?
Can you say, "shadow government," boys and girls? Interesting times...
SteveLG | Email | 11.28.03 - 5:05 pm | #
Some people really are attracted to these kind of drama queen situations. Frankly, I find them silly.
>http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen11282003.html<
Sad but true :->
You got it - ignoring them all is about the only way to navigate these waters these days.
Tena | Email | 11.28.03 - 5:08 pm | #
If I had a dollar for every time you've made that little speech...
Keep the blinders on, dear.
"And to those who would denigrate his bravery, sure security was tight, but we've all seen how much that means in today's Iraq. Only last week a rocket shot out the engine of a landing airplane, and they even took a video of it to show how much they think of our security.--Dick Thompson"
The security zone around Bagdad airport is down to two miles. That is reportedly on the edge of shoulder-fired missiles. Suggesting that Bx is daring for landing is only saying that Bx is lying about the pacification of Bagdad, or the US depth of containment of Iraqi threats.
A troll is someone who posts a long string of contentless rebuttal, or who just posts nonsense and contradiction to get a rise out of people. Responding to contentless posts makes these threads unreadable. Don't feed the contentless...let them eat soap bubbles.
SteveLG - Your premonition is really horrific, alright, but not that far off and may be another rationale behind this whole attempt to restructure the political landscape of the U.S.
However, Texas hasn't been redistricted yet. That map is in court. The old map was drawn by federal judge Patrick Higginbotham. I believe the new map is in front of him, as well. Do not bank on Judge Higginbotham saying that he made a mistake with the old map. He is a very smart man, and while a Republican, not one who follows or takes to being pressured. Think "judicial ego." Then magnify that thought to infinity, and you will have a pretty good picture of Judge Higginbotham.
If we get anything like a fair election, Bx will lose by one of the largest landslides in US history. The crossover vote going to Dean is gigantic, and generally unmeasured.
Though I live on the coasts, still I meet Rs every day who scream how much they hate what Bx has done to the country, to their party, and to the military.
Sure, we can sit around freaking out about the 'fool all the time people,' but what is really going on is 'won't get fooled again.' So that means another treasonous attack on our country, as an excuse for martial law, an idea they are already warming up in the microwave. All the more reason to Get Behind the Governor! because we need to consolidate our power as quickly as possible.
Brian C.B.
I think your right.
What kind of liberation is it going to be? I'm sure it isn't what poor old Thomas Friedman had in mind.
John Burns of NYT said that the Iraqis want some kind of government but not necessarily a real democracy like the one the US is pattern after because the Iraqis don't really understanding democracy themselves. An Islamic governmnet will do I suppose.
I also don't think Bush will be able to hold on to his pre-awarded oil contacts. I don't think this guy you mention, Ayatollah Ali Sistani will be big on American business contracts after Bush starts removing troops. After some withdrawal, Iraq may start disassembly the US oil contracts to pushing for more international competition which is why France Germany and Russia have been pusing for the US to turn over Iraq to the Iraqis in the first place.
One one way the Ayatollah Ali Sistani can motivate his people is to tell them to help take over the countries military labors so the Ame
Random thought: The State Department has lifted travel restrictions to Iraq, correct? So, hypothetically, if they wanted to do it just to show off, any one of the Democratic presidential candidates could just get on a plane to Jordan, get off, hire a cab and drive to the border, right?
This just popped into my head as I was watching John Kerry issue a reserved smackdown of Bush's visit on CNN. I was thinking, "well, I'm sure he'll get hit for not going himself." Theoretically, I suppose he could.
Not that it would ameliorate the "cowardly Democrat" argument in the least, not from Coulter or any of the MBFs, but I'm suddenly having visions of Howard Dean, not needing any secrecy, meeting with ordinary Iraqis and troops and such, in the street, during daylight ...
Doubtless this is sleep deprivation talking.
A.
more...
One one way the Ayatollah Ali Sistani can motivate his people is to tell them to help take over the countries military labors so the Americans will LEAVE.
I noticed Thomas Friedman has gone into begging mode. That guy never did get it.
[[SteveLG - re: dueling anonymouses
You got it - ignoring them all is about the only way to navigate these waters these days.
Tena | Email | 11.28.03 - 5:08 pm | #]]
cf.
"I'm interested in the psychology of flame-postings. It seems to be driven by hunger for self-righteousness points. By slamming and rejecting someone else, a poster feels themselves to be elevated.
I have even felt this in myself, though I try to be mature and contibute something of substance. Other people don't resist this urge to 'kill' each other online with verbal violence. Also, it doesn't seem to matter what position one is arguing for and against. The main point is not to advance a cause of knowledge, but to elevate oneself at another's expense."
http://www.egodeath.com/discuss.htm
BTW, like Atrios I thought Bush's visit was, on balance a good thing. Truth be told, I actually cringed in anticipation of unwarranted knee-jerk criticism by lefty bloggers.
But that was before I found out about Hilary's visit. I am not talking about the difference in time spent - clearly I don't want the President walking around Baghdad as a roving target.
What I find amazing is that I did not even hear about her trip until today. Maybe I just missed it but NONE of the stories I saw yesterday hinted that this might be a P.R. stunt to beat HRC to the punch.
Why do I suspect that, had this been Clinton or Gore, the usual beltway suspects would have employed the time-honored loaded question to slam the photo-op? Gloria Borger is the master of this ("Isn't this just an attempt by Gore to steal ____'s thunder? Aren't the American people going to see through this?").
Please change that poll number.
It's now 54% noes, 46% yesses.
I'd like to say this, even at the possible cost of being misunderstood as, yech ptui, "a Bush supporter."
This Baghdad visit is one of the only three even partly creditable things that so-and-so Duh-Byuh has done in the entire duration of his Administration. I'm glad he got up off his ass and went to visit the soldiers and try to buck up their morale. Good for him, two-and-a-half cheers for "W" - and while we're at it, how about a pat on the back for Hillary Clinton and Cher, too?
I was 100% against the invasion of Iraq from the first day I heard of it. Certain halfwits would lie to you and proclaim that I, W. Kiernan, personally want those soldiers to come back in body bags. Which I've heard enough and enough and enough of already, and which is why, if I ever meet those punks in person I'm not going to even say a word, I'm taking it straight to Fist City.
Well if an
Well, after that little Abraham Lincoln misunderstanding, I just hope Bush made sure a bunch of soldiers didn't take it upon themselves (entirely upon their own initiative and with no prior consultation whatsoever) to put up a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Well if any of you guys and gals in Iraq are reading this, Happy Turkey Day, and I really, really hope you all make it home in one piece real soon!
CNN http://www.cnn.com/ asks:
Should President Bush have met with ordinary Iraqis too?
"No" is currently winning there, too.
Regarding the use of "unprecedented" to describe this presidential visit... if I understand correctly, it is unprecedented in that it's the first time a US President has ever visited Iraq. (Although you can't really say that it's the first time a US government has visited the sovereign nation of Iraq, since we're the occupying force: a distinction that seems important to me but which isn't being noted by the media)
The thing is, like others on this board, when I hear "unprecedented" being tossed around in the media, my first interpretation is that Bush has done something heroic, bold, or daring. It's a curious word to be using, and a curious spin on the situation. It leads me to wonder if maybe "unprecedented" is a buzzword that's been advanced by the White House and swallowed whole by the press corps...?
Sorry, bad linkery:
Poll here.
musing graze - linky not worky. Got the ol' 404 error message - page not found.
On TV, doesn't he look like The Grinch carving roast beast?
oops! crossed posts. Sorry, Musing Graze.
Thanks for the correction.
No prob, Tena. Liked your T-Day story, by the way!
As for the Grinch . . . .
Maybe that is what it will take to motivate, or shame, Der Chimpenfuhrer to continue THAT decades-long tradition.
Today on Crossfire Begala was questioning a republican spokesman (familiar face but I can't remember his name, he has a mustache). The repub said well all presidents don't do things in public. Begala said something about bush having not attended any funerals. The spokesman got this soft look on his face, and started "well ... you ..." and drifted off, leaving everyone to believe that possibly bush has attended some funerals, and has done it in private. Is there anyway we can confirm this?
And BTW, CNN yesterday used the word unprecedented. I think probably Fox did too. They also kept saying that he is the first president to visit Iraq.
And Brian, we discussed this trip at great length in yesterday's thread ... how the news people were saying how brave bush is to go to Iraq, after drilling us over and over the past few weeks about how good things w
musing graze - re: my T-day story - Thanks. I was really depressed about everything last week, especially after the report on Nightline about the Hitler Youth trying to intimidate university professors whom they consider "too liberal." That lovely moment with my friend's dad cheered me no end.
It's gonna take a couple of years for the scope of the disaster BushCo is leaving us in the eviroment, energy situation, infrastructure, healthcare -- hell, everything -- to become obvious to most ...
This is why we've got to get him out of there next year --- it will only worsen if he has another four years.
The pathos of that soldier in the dark and the mud asking the journalist whether we at home know that the 3ID is still there will haunt me for a long time to come.......
I try to be mature and contibute something of substance.
Example, please.
I just missed it but NONE of the stories I saw yesterday hinted that this might be a P.R. stunt to beat HRC to the punch.
It was all over the internet. Maybe just a way to rib the cons.
Under 'normal' circumstances I would say Bush's stop in Bagdad was a positive move. However... this administration has never had 'normal' motivations for anything. As much as I'd like to think this is a nice display of support for the troops, it's actually just a "spotlight stealer" from the Clinton/Reid "real visit".
Space: You're right that individual reporters know who was pushing the story, but that doesn't mean "The Media" knows.
Novak, Mitchell, I think there was a piece in either Time or Newsweek (dammit, memory isn't supposed to go first), which reported the story as "WH trying to smear Wilson's trip" based on clearly got the same phone call. That would make three. I think Newsday got the story a couple of days after Novak. Four. Not sure who the other two are (unless you're counting Newsweek and Newsday's double-byline as two reporters).
On the questioning...if you ask the WH, they won't say (though they used to). If you ask the DoJ, they won't say. You're left with asking each individual senior administration official, which doesn't really help.
(My answer to Graze was based on the fact that one of my colleagues is working on a piece on "where is the Plame investigation now?")
So of course you can ask these people, but if you don't get an answer, you're left w
The administration knew in September that Hillary was going...isn't that interesting? And yes, she left Baghdad airport. And yes, her Afghanistan trip was popular with the troops.
This is good to know. I'm not her biggest fan, but I tend to root for her, and she gets so much crap from the right-wing! So, this is good to know. Thanks!
Warren Terra in yesterday's thread altertly spotted Bush spreading this bit of vile spin again: "You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country..."
Why do people let this pass without comment? Right-wingers repeat this bile like it makes sense and isn't reprehensible bullshit. It's a plain admission by Bush that he is using the men and women of our armed forces as decoys. These men and women didn't sign up to be fragged by suicide bombers! And is there any evidence that terrorists are tied down in Iraq and, thus, somehow inhibited from attacking elsewhere?
Moreover, how can he continue to say that this is a liberation and humanitarian effort, if he also admits to intentionally attracting terrorists to Iraq?
leaving everyone to believe that possibly bush has attended some funerals, and has done it in private. Is there anyway we can confirm this?
Doesn't pass the smell test -- when has Bush done anything which could confer political gain without publicizing it to the max?
Begala said something about bush having not attended any funerals. The spokesman got this soft look on his face, and started "well ... you ..." and drifted off, leaving everyone to believe that possibly bush has attended some funerals, and has done it in private. Is there anyway we can confirm this?
Even if it weren't televised I'm sure there would have been some mention, somewhere. And I'm sure RoveCo would have tried to spin it into a positive image for him. Obviously he's been too busy with the fundraising to do anything so plebian as atending the funeral of someone's death he's responsible for.
Qrazy Qat - You're right - this administration does nothing that isn't directly linked to getting elected in '04. There is no way that Bush would go to military funerals in secret.
Besides, someone would have spilled the beans by now if he had.
Face it, the whole thing was a case of Operation Prop Up Sagging Poll Numbers meets Keep Hillary off the front page with our SCLM playing along like the stuffed birds they are.
Hateful people make hateful comments
Doesn't pass the smell test -- when has Bush done anything which could confer political gain without publicizing it to the max?
Wouldn't we at least hear of an interview on Fox with a second cousin of one of the dearly departed and how Bush showing up warmed their hearts?
Here's a question: if Bush hasn't been showing up, can he just start? He'd never admit the absentee tactic is stupid and callous. But just starting to go would essentially be a tacit admission of the same. How would he explain this to the families of the fallen whose funerals he could not be bothered to attend?
If it weren't for the equally absent media, I'd say Bush had painted himself into a corner.
dak - yah, I agree. I suppose it's possible that he'll start staging funeral photo ops. But as you say, he's in a damned ticklish position if he does.
"You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country..."
Our soldiers are the flypaper, so we don't have flies in our kitchen.
And this is a morale booster....
Aside, of course, from the patently ridiculous idea that "terrorism" can be "defeated."
It's like telling police officers they are defeating crime in the streets, so we don't have it in our homes. An assertion laughable on it's face, aside from the fact it overtly treats the volunteer army as so much cannon fodder....
Bush's stunt was exactly that, a stunt. Is that what American's want from their President...that is the question?
Bush has reduced the presidency to nothing more than a series of campaign events.
It seems to me that this whole visit was both politically calculated and an appropriate thing for a president to do. I really can't bash Bush for this one - though I agree with Steve Gilliard that this was, in effect, an attempt to obfuscate his earlier "Mission Accomplished" moment since it's clear that the the mission is most certainly not accomplished and it doesn't look like it will be for some time.
But this is common practice for a president in wartime. I don't like the Prince Hal-esque quality of the reporting on Bush's visit, since he isn't doing anything that other presidents visiting combat zones haven't done already; nevertheless, it gave some soldiers a boost and that's a good thing.
So I think it's a better move for Bush's opposition to continue a dignified opposition with the facts at hand that this visit cannot cover up: the masses of WMD that ostensibly threatened the United States have as of yet to be found, Iraqi reconstruction is no
...oops, continue
Iraqi reconstruction is not proceeding as smoothly as we've been given to believe it would, and Iraqi resistance to occupation is greater than expected. Bush has not prepared the American public adequately for any of these scenarios.
I think the whole "spend the holidays with the troops" thing is a cynical ploy no matter who is doing it, including Hillary. It implies that the politician in question is sharing in the hardship and possibly some of the danger faced by the troops, and that's a load of shit. Soldiers want to be home with their families, not hanging out with politicians and smiling for the cameras. Hell, at least send some Playboy bunnies or a good band over there for them if you want to do something for the holiday.
Gene, I have family over there, and we jump when the phone rings late at night, worrying that we'll get that fateful call, like the one that came when my Uncle had his head blown apart in Vietnam.
I have respect for the men and women who signed up to defend this country and have their lives wasted by the likes of scum like you.
Get the meme in gear:
"The Fly By Night President"
WH'ho:
Since you seem well acquainted with the inner workings of the Beltway Media Beast, do you have any insight into the deafening silence about the Republicans hacking into the computers of the minority on the Judiciary Committee and distributing those memos to selected MHs?
Aren't Sens. Clinton and Reed due to visit Iraq today? Are they facing the same security risk? I just read an article about yesterday's visit to Kabul and nothing was mentioned about anyone fearing for their safety there (even though several aid workers have been gunned down in recent weeks). Is it because they're Democrats? Hmmm.
You didn't see the photo of HRC in Kabul with 2 nasty looking guys carrying nasty looking weapons standing behind her?
This thread has Orwell's "2 Minute Hate" remixed into the extended version. Good job guys!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
"Hateful people make hateful comments--gene"
And then fly all night to jump out of a cake.
The Preznit's tassels and pasties were a great help to our boys. He's the first white girl they've seen in quite a while, and now that he's back on sweets, his man-boobies look pretty good in dim light, or so the embeds report.
"Playmate of the month! I had to come all the way to Bagdad to meet the playmate of the month!"
This just in, via Daily Kos:
"...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."
So now it looks like the reason Bush went to Iraq might have been because he was afraid he would be shown up by Hillary Clinton. And even then he would only skulk in and out after dark. He's a craven coward.
Did you know that the Iraq Thanksgiving Day Feast was held at 6:00 a.m.? Yes, that's 6:00 a.m. Iraqi time. Sheech. The least they could have done was serve bacon and eggs, or pancakes, or cereal.
I have not talked to one person in the past two days who wasn't happy with President Bush visiting the troops in Iraq. One woman said she started crying when she heard about it because she knew how much it meant to the troops there. In her eyes he was going there for her. Just what a country's leader is supposed to do.
The most impressive thing about the visit was the great ovation given to the President by the troops who stood on chairs and jumped up on tables to cheer, yell, and scream for the President. That was awesome.
It is good that HRC went to Afganistan and Iraq too. I am sure the troops appreciated it although I haven't read or seen any pictures about her welcome by the troops other than the one of her talking to a female soldier at dinner (any links?). It is courageous for anyone to go there no matter how much security they are surrounded by. The terrorists would love to kill any American leader. Most people who go there go through a transformation after s
Bush's brief, early morning visit to Iraq was both a morale booster and a publicity stunt, but lauding it as an act of bravery is taking it too far. Bravery is something aWol feigns but does not possess.
It's so nice to see Eschaton as a peaceful, cozy place for all Repubs to be in during Thanksgiving :D
Saw Shruba in the Buffalo paper carrying a turkey platter during his altruistic turkey photo shoot.
Who was he trying to impress?
It's like so obvious. Only a fool believes in Bush.
Bush's poem mystery explained.
Here is the lump.
http://www.erotech-industries.co....com/
index.html
Anonymous,
Your Objectivist Zen 'tude is getting wearying.
You might think it's funny to pretend to be superior to everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest, but it says more about your own feelings of inferiority than anything else.
I feel sad for you, and I wish you luck in growing up.
Hillary will have spent approximately 20 hrs. in Iraq compared to shrub's two; she'll talk turkey with troops and officials and not just serve it; and she won't have to be ensconsed in an enormous security system like our cowardly pResident.
mike in pr and atrois' post are exactly right. Given past presidential war zone visits, it's the least he could have done.
What bothers me, as always, are the lies. The you're fighting terrorist here so we don't fight them on the streets nevohda.
Monkey, to which anonymous are you speaking?
Atrios and some other posters have demonstrated what a fine PR coup this junket really was. Criticize it and sound like you don't support the troops, also that you are angry that Bush is finally paying attention to Iraq. Really. You have to admire them for it.
And then vomit up all that nice Thanksgiving dinner you had....
Hey, Anonymous, I LOVE your new bashing site....it really does demonstrate the depth of your mental illness....
Mr. Sullivan, I was present for the surprise visit by the President. It was truly wonderful to be there, and my buddies and I really are grateful that President Bush would take a real risk to come see u. He flew about 12 hours to spend 2 hours with us, he served food to the troops, but he never got a chance to eat himself, at least not until he got on the plane, I'd imagine. For 2 hours, the President walked amongst us, not a receiving line where we came to him, stiff and formal, but coming to us, reading our names on our uniforms and greeting us by name. He looked me in the eye when he shook my hand, he joked with some, whispered to others, spoke a little Spanish to my friend. 2 hours of almost non-stop motion, how exhausting after a 12 hour flight! He did it to be with us, and we appreciate it.
"Monkey, to which anonymous are you speaking?"
Anonymousi, can't one of you be considerate enough or smart enough to alter your name so as to avoid confusion, or are you just dumb monkies?
> how exhausting after a 12 hour flight!
Yeah Bush gets crammed into cattle class like the rest of us on AF1
He probably got his usual amount of shut-eye and at the usual time. That's why the troops had to have their Turkey Dinner at 6:00 a.m.
"I've never been so surprised. I had no idea - not a clue. I feel uplifted. I almost forgot I was even here." -Private Stephen Henderson, 19, of Inglewood, CA. Army infantryman, part of 1st Armored Division, 1st Brigade, 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry (136 Spartans), Task Force 137
"I never thought he would be here. I'm proud to have him as the commander-in-chief. You can't beat it." -PFC Mark Hansen, 29, of Hillsborough, N.J., an Army field artillery surveyor
"I think it's great. It shows that he cares about us and is thinking about us. It's not easy being here. Every day you're over here, you feel depressed anyway. But it's especially hard on a holiday and this is the kickoff of the holidays. For the most part people are tired, and want to go home. But the support and encouragement we get from our leadership builds a bond with our soldiers." -Staff Sgt. Gerrie (cq) Stokes Holloman, 34, of Baltimore, MD, 1st Armored Division, 141 Signal Battalion
"He's got to win in '04. No one else can prosecute this war like he can," -Capt. John Morrison, of Butler County, PA.
To the dumbasses that do not understand that Iraq is in another timezone:
Air Force One — which flew in radio silence with running lights off and fighter jets on either side — landed under a sliver of a moon at Baghdad International Airport about 5:30 p.m. local time
Bush didn't serve Turkey to the troops at 6 am Iraq time, he served it 6 am west coast time. Another fine example of the failure of the US Public Education system. Thank you NEA.
"For 2 hours, the President walked amongst us,
>>That was awfully big of you, George, so, uh, Jesus-like. This is gonna play like a Mozart concerto come next fall.
not a receiving line where we came to him, stiff and formal, but coming to us, reading our names on our uniforms and greeting us by name.
>>He actually read their names?? And acted like a "regular guy?" Wow! Is there no end to his fabulous humility?
He looked me in the eye when he shook my hand, he joked with some, whispered to others, spoke a little Spanish to my friend. 2 hours of almost non-stop motion,
George. Never ceases to amaze us, does he? One fabu fucking lous pres.
I am speechless.
Someone please tell me what or who "troll" refers to. Thank you very much.
Did you know that the Iraq Thanksgiving Day Feast was held at 6:00 a.m.? Yes, that's 6:00 a.m. Iraqi time. Sheech. The least they could have done was serve bacon and eggs, or pancakes, or cereal.
mike in pr | Email | 11.28.03 - 8:43 pm | #
This is one of the time zone dumbasses.
Shaw Kenawe, love how you support the troops there! Anymore of them you feel like mocking?
Under the circumstances, Anonymous, I can understand our boys' public remarks, since among other things, this stunt was a morale booster. On the other hand, it was also a public relations stunt. I'm sure many of the troops can see beyond the bullshit, but to call the imposter's bluff at this point in time could get them in a whole lot of trouble.
Re: Anonymice-- since the one with the website seems to be AKA "King," should the others be "Queen," "Jack," "Ace," etc.?
"Shaw Kenawe, love how you support the troops there! Anymore of them you feel like mocking?--Anonymous"
Anonymous,
When you acquire reading comprehension skills, you'll understand that I was mocking George, not the troops.
I think we all appreciate the effort of Unka Karl's boilerroom in disseminating the thankful statements from the troops as soon as they can think of them...
"You were mocking what they were saying. Clear and simple. Nice try covering your ass on that one. Now, crawl back under your bridge troll.
Anonymous"
Anonymous,
Do you know how fabulously adorable you are when you act like a miscomprehending moron? You are one righteous detranquepot.
Anonymice, see Wayne Madsen, "Surprise Dinner at 6:00 a.m.?" Counterpoint. Either my referenced source is wrong or your unreferenced one is. In either case, I wouldn't blame the US Public Education system (Are you a product of it? I'm not.), or the NEA, nor would I call the party in error a dumbass.
I enjoyed reading your false claim that I'm spilling bullshit "about Bush forcing them to eat Thanksgiving dinner at six a.m. Iraq time." The forced eating image is hilarious and your statement once again reflects your difficulties with reading comprehension.
mike in pr, if you didn't get a public education, I would be suing the private school for my money back in your case. If really think that the Army would schedule a Thanksgiving dinner at 6 a.m. you have to be one of the biggest fools, well, next to Wayne Madsen. I can tell now, you know you are wrong by your childish, defensive posture. Just admit you made a dumbass allegation. Just read the reporter's notes from the trip to see the time of events -- such as Mike Allen, one of the pool reporters.
Did you know that the Iraq Thanksgiving Day Feast was held at 6:00 a.m.? Yes, that's 6:00 a.m. Iraqi time. Sheech. The least they could have done was serve bacon and eggs, or pancakes, or cereal.
mike in pr | Email | 11.28.03 - 8:43 pm | #
mike in pr -- Private School Educated Dumbass.
For mike in pr, Private School Educated Super-Genius
The President left Waco secretly Wednesday at 8:25 p.m. Eastern (7:25 p.m. Texan) with a small pool, stopped at Andrews to pick up a few staff and a few more poolers, change planes and then head to Baghad. Both flights were what we think of as the normal Air Force One, Boeing 747 with the normal marking. The President landed in darkness at Baghdad International Airport at 9:31 a.m. Washington time (5:32 p.m. local) on Thursday, Nov. 27, Thanksgiving Day. He took off at 12:03 p.m. Eastern time, so was in Baghdad roughly 2.5 hours. -- Mike Allen, Washington Post, raw reporter's notes
(just a hint...Baghdad is in a different time zone than you and Wayne Madsen)
I see the sheep have confused the two wolves over here. Pathetic but predictable.
Uh...correct me if I'm wrong, but there would have been NO NEED for Bush to fly halfway around the world for a photo-op with the troops IF HE HADN'T LIED US INTO A WAR. That's the spin on this one. Nothing more than a photo-op.
Beyond that, how nice for the Shrub that he could get on a plane and head back to the US after only 2-1/2 hours. Do you think that point was lost on the soldiers he dined with, many of whom have been there for a year (so far) with no end in sight?
And for any of the soldiers that cheered his visit (and appreciate being used as a photo-op prop), if you're still so blindly, mindlessly in love with this man who has put your life in danger and imperiled our country in too many ways to count, perhaps you DESERVE to spend the next several years in Baghdad - perhaps that will wake you up. You're what we call a "slow learner."
"He's got to win in '04. No one else can prosecute this war like he can." - Capt. John Morrison, of Butler County, PA.
Well, if Morrison means that no one else could have created the massive clusterfuck that is the US occupation of Iraq, I'd have to agree with him.
"Bush didn't serve Turkey to the troops at 6 am Iraq time, he served it 6 am west coast time."
One presumes that with 2 months to plan it, they'd arrive at dinnertime. After all, that's 2 months more planning than went into the post-invasion deployment.
Bx then went for his first visit to an Army hospital, in Germany. There he was overheard making his "Wing, or Leg?" joke over and over as he went through the ward, laughing eerily in the hollow spaces of pain and despair.
The hospital is short on the morphine, so it was a good thing they flew Flush Limbo in as part of the 700 person entourage. Theyjust turned him upside down and stuck a needle in him, and he easily supplied everyone's needs, with plenty left to numb his Morality Stump.
'Prosecution,' of course, is an embed insert, since you need guilty people in a prosecution, and the Iraqis were completely innocent.
Goddamned Waco Paperhanging mass-murdering sonofabitch.
I see the sheep have confused the two wolves over here. Pathetic but predictable.
Anonymous | Homepage
Perhaps create a blog called "bashatrioscommenters" and put those type of comments there?
"Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport, under cover of darkness, at 5:20 AM Baghdad time. Bush was on the ground for two and a half hours, his plane departing Baghdad at around 7:50 AM.
Here.
"A little after 5 a.m. Baghdad time, about 10 hours after takeoff from Andrews, the cabin lights were turned off and all the shades were down. Twenty minutes later, we touched down in Baghdad"
Here
You may not notice, but I do stop with the flaming, but the good people of Eschaton want to keep the fire lit, apparently, and I'm more than happy to oblige them
"More than happy" is how I would describe your willingness to engage and that may be why I "may not notice".
Yes, what a collection of ignorant, asine, cowardly, leftie/liberal parasites on this site...
I find it amazing that so many incredibly stupid people can congregate on one site and make like they even have a clue about what their mindless blather is all about...
If there was ever a sadder reenforcement of the idea that money spent on public education are tax dollar well wasted, it the collection of assholes here...
What I'm wondering is if the parents of the assholes bitching about Bush on this site could be taken off to the Hague and put on trial for committing crimes against humanity by not having the foresight to choke the shit out of the collective lot of you parasites while you were in the cradle...
Russ, such language! I'm shocked. Anyway, thought you right wing nuts were against killing babies? Tsk tsk tsk.
tena i hope you are right about the repubs--i have relatives that are republican and i know they arent stupid, but they are willfully blind when it comes to W. But the facts may make eventually wear away the blinders. of course, there are some republicans that will never change, people like Russ.
Bush logic:
Cut & run = bad, eat & run = good.
"MEAL ACCOMPLISHED"
What is with all the trolls here now? Are they getting organized now?
Congrats on your good news, MG!
I agree the trolls this week have been pathetic.
Don't kid yourself - they've always been "organized."
Bush to troops: I CARE! (But let's keep it a secret until I'm outta here.)
Once the press comes out of its trytophan stupor, they'll have the morning after regrets about this bogus stunt.
Nice story in the paper today about the trip. Among other things, it made the statement that it would be difficult to criticize Bush's trip without sounding unpatriotic. This sounds like more of the sam bullshit we have come to expect from 'wingers. I am wondering how Hillary's tour registered with the Right and if they feel any compunction to restrain criticism of her efforts?
Of course that is a rhetorical question, Bush's trip was political, just like Hillary's. There can be no doubt about it. Hillary's was planned in September, Bush's in October. Was Bush's trip planned in response to Hillary's? There is no way to know. It is simpler to conclude that they had independent reasons for making the trips: Hilary wanted to draw attention to flagging US support for the war in Afghanistan and emphasize the need for internationalizing Iraq (by first changing leadership in the US), Bush wanted to show the US that he is engaged and concerned, and to generate some good camp
... some good campaign footage (since he ahs been denied the carrier stunt). I think on balance, Hillary's trip was motivated by a higher purpose while Bush's was more nakedly political. But that's the real difference between the the Clintons and the Democrats, and the Bushes and the Republicans. There is more substance to the left in terms of how government is used to make the workd a better place. The Right sees government as a way to gain power and wealth, not as a way to bring progress and advancement to society
You may recall his flight from flight school, his flights of fear on 9/11, his funny flight suit appearance on the USS Lincoln to falsely declare "Mission Accomplished," his foolish lying about the source of the false banner afterwards, his "bring 'em on" and "I feel good" blusters, and so forth. The brief, sneaky visit to Iraq to bullshit the troops is just the latest in a long series of events that reveal this guy's true nature. 6:00 a.m., 6:00 p.m., 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 12 months a year, this guy is a phoney, a liar, a coward.
Shut up, liberals. Shut up. We are right, we are winning. You will be dust.
Anonymous of 11.29.03-9:25 am, why don't you alter your nom de blog so as to separate yourself from that dumbass blogger, Anonymous 11.29.03-1:40 am? If, by chance, you are one and the same, you both should seek medical help immediately for your serious and severe dual personality disorder.
And Rethuglican, we all know you're really Bill O'Really.
johnx joins the timezone dumbass club. Read each one of these seperate news sources to get the correct story. If you would have taken the time to read instead of parrot, you wouldn't look like a fool like mike in pr.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/me...q.bush.tic.toc/
http://www.nydailynews.com/front...0p-
124901c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front...0p-
124901c.html
http://washingtontimes.com/natio...12030-
2106r.htm
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctim...ews/
7369228.htm
http://www.time.com/time/nation/
...,551980,00.html
And finally from the Democrats Official Newspaper
http://
english.peopledaily.com.c...28_129209.shtml
Johnx they don't server dinner in the morning, they serve it night!
What I'm wondering is if the parents of the assholes bitching about Bush on this site could be taken off to the Hague and put on trial for committing crimes against humanity by not having the foresight to choke the shit out of the collective lot of you parasites while you were in the cradle... russ
Wowee! Such hostility. Is this the repugs answer to the 'partial birth' ban?
For all you wuzzit dinner / wuzzit breakfast people. Anonymous (the conservative) is correct. Bush landed in the evening (at about 5:32 p.m. Baghdad time, 9:32 a.m. Washington time). It was, in fact, dinner.
For all you "Upstage Hillary" conspiracy buffs...Her trip was delayed about 10 days by the Medicare and Energy debates. So Bush's trip, as scheduled, would have come AFTER her visit. Unless you think the Medicare and Energy debates were somehow staged just to delay Hillary, you can't say Bush did this just to upstage her by getting there first. (But you could, I suppose, argue that her trip forced him to go).
Cat: What "deafening silence"? Everyone covered the Hatch presser (WaPo, wires...and of course Roll Call and The Hill).
Come on, the Chimp took his little trip because Rove had gotten wind of Hillary's trip to Afghanistan. No way was he gonna let his boy get upstaged by a Clinton. This was just another pathetic photo-op, nothing else. By the way, I wonder how the troops liked having their turkey with all the trimmings at 6:00am Baghdad time??
"you forgot ... risking his plane being blown out of the air by any number of RPG's"
If we could have only been that lucky.
For all you "Upstage Hillary" conspiracy buffs...Her trip was delayed about 10 days by the Medicare and Energy debates. So Bush's trip, as scheduled, would have come AFTER her visit."
Uh, no. The media has been referring to this as a "surprise" visit by the Chimp. Maybe it's just me, but "surprise" generally means unscheduled.
I think the press, like many Americans, are desperate for some sign of real leadership right now. When they think they see something that remotely resembles it, they'll fawn all over it.
Gene214. Work with me here:
- September
Hillary's people plan the trip, informing the Pentagon and the State Department. The trip is set for around November 21
- mid-October
Bush starts thinking about going to Baghdad for Thanksgiving WHICH FALLS AFTER November 21 (so she would beat him to Baghdad)
- late November
Hillary's trip is pushed back because of the Medicare and Energy debates. It is pushed back far enough that it falls AFTER Bush's visit to Baghdad.
What I'm saying is that Bush's trip was not designed to upstage Hillary, because the schedule would have had him in Baghdad AFTER her.
I am, however, leaving open the possibility that Hillary's plans effectively forced Bush to go. He was just lucky that Senate work forced her to time her visit to Iraq for one day after his.
And if you're still clinging to this 6 a.m. crap, you're beyond help.
"you forgot ... risking his plane being blown out of the air by any number of RPG's"
If we could have only been that lucky.
gene214 | Email | 11.29.03 - 2:14 pm | #
Sick, sick, sick.
You wish our President dead. That is illegal. And unpatriotic.
"Sick, sick, sick.
You wish our President dead. That is illegal. And unpatriotic.
Fair and Balanced"
F&B,
I wonder how outraged you were when Ann Coulter wished the same thing on Clinton. She said "Impeach him or kill him." Or when a Republican senator, can't remember exactly which one, called Clinton a "scumbag."
I hope you were dropping in on blogs making your disgust known...
WH'ho
Welcome back, I really value your perspective, as I'm confident most of us here do.
You're right, the Hatch press conference regarding the computer hacking has been covered; I guess I'm just anxious that someone cover it as a potential crime and not as a partisan thing that the Dems are whining about. Perhaps that is premature or wishful thinking. I'd like to see some jowls flapping and some huffing and puffing about it. Sigh!
Good thing we're fighting the "war on terror" over there. Ya wouldn't want our troops breaking and entering your home or bombing up your neighborhood, would ya? Ya wouldn't want them doing Operation Iron Fist on you, would ya?
Tena, you probably won't see this, but I'll post it anyway.
My point about the Vietnam war wasn't that Nixon was blamed, it was that for the last 30 years the Republicans (or the fascist right which includes more than just Republicans) have successfully blamed LBJ and the other Democrat architects of the war for the "loss" of Vietnam.
The inverse only being chronologically - not ideologically.
Again, no one can challenge the point that if Bush loses and Iraq continues to disintegrate as a society under the Dem Prez, no one can challenge that the fascists won't pin the blame on the Dems...
So if I'm a Dem, I hope for a Bush win...
you could, I suppose, argue that her trip forced him to go).
I think this is what most people were arguing -- it's been reported that she planned her trip in September and bush's was planned in October. Is that correct?
when a Republican senator, can't remember exactly which one, called Clinton a "scumbag."
Shaw Kenawe
Shaw, Jesse Helms's veiled 'threat' to Clinton was pretty well publicized at the time, but I can't remember if it was Clinton's first or 2nd term. Helms said something to the effect that Clinton had better be careful if he ever came to N. Carolina ...
Cat: Well, I doubt very much that people, especially Dems, are going to let the memo thing drop. And WaPo's Helen Dewar is on the case, which means it'll get play. The key is Roll Call and The Hill, who will be fighting to scoop each other on this. So-called "mainstream media" will probably follow their coverage.
Streaker: Hillary's trip was planned in September, and her office worked out logistics with the Pentagon in September, which means the admin knew then. The White House says the Bush trip planning began when Andy Card suggested it in mid-October.
Also, Shaw Kenaw and Streaker, Representative Dan Burton was the one who called Clinton a scumbag (one assumes he was taking a break from shooting melons in his backyard as part of his bizarre independent investigation into the Vince Foster suicide). And Helms got a Secret Service talking to after saying that he could not guarantee Clinton's security if Clinton came to North Carolina.
You wish our President dead. That is illegal. And unpatriotic.
No it's not ... killing him, Yeah, but not wishing he were dead.
But I'm pretty sure you were being tongue in cheek.
WH'ho:
Thanks for the tips, I'll add those to my daily reads....incredibly, I didn't know about Roll Call and The Hill before this (living as I do out in the hinterlands.) Patience is a virtue, I take it...
Are you of the opinion this is just more of the same, or do you see it as a serious breach? I must confess, I can't tell any more....
WH 'ho
Not sure if you will even see this but, I am grateful that Roll Call, The Hill, WaPo, and the wires did cover the Hatch press conference and computer hacking scandal. That is probably why most of the people here venture online to find and read the news. However the problem is that the majority of people in this country read and follow neither of these. It is difficult for me to see how the masses get informed unless major tv and cable outlets cover it. When Fox News and CNN begin having this story scroll across their news banner every minute then I will think differently. Any thoughts as to why these tv/cable networks have not yet followed this story? Just wondering.
Once again thanks for you insight.
Atrios:
Liar, liar pants on fire.
Your holy-grail paper, NYT, had a photo of Bush meeting with governering council members (Fri edition). Even NPR Morning Edition, another grail of liberal-hypocrites, made a sly (spin against GOP) reference to it. By saying one council member was not happy. This was spun for a long time.
Why are you all so screwed up? You are really juvenile delinquents here? This is worse than KKK. Perpetual whiners when someone else gets to win or be better for a day. You gotta rain on someone's parade.
Shame on your, Atrios. Shame on you.
right, I can't let chief be the last comment.
"holy-grail paper"? Excuse me? NYT has an extensive record of error, is the perch of the loathsome Friedman (et al), is rabidly pro Bush to the extent that the G.A. Sistani story was framed in terms of Sistani extending the US occupation, not mentioning that Bremer had originally told the Iraqis US would occupy for at least 2 years and-against the NYT implication-Sistani forced that to change. But even I have to admit NYT is still a large, sometimes good news organization, so its devotees shouldn't be blamed unless they believe its advertising line about "paper of record."
Does Bush meeting with his puppets mean somnething, Chief?
The clinus in Kosovo met with the recently-liberated-on-the-street. Did Bush have the balls to go anywhere near any Arabs not completely owned by him? How exactly do you "spin" a Bush photo op any further? Most stuff I read in the British press is really "unspinning."
What is with the holy grail
What is with the holy grail references, ignorant Zionist? There's only one grail, that's how the myth goes, get it right. And NPR ME is hardly the "grail" of any libs I know, and here they've just finished a discussion of radio a post away and didn't dig it, in favor of Deutsche Welle (Welt?), BBC and CBC, none of which, by the way, are terribly "liberal" except compared with ignorant American media outlets.
"One council member was not happy"-you know what would be worse spin, Chief? If they mentioned the MILLIONS OF IRAQI CIVILIANS not exactly happy with the Chimp "visiting" for 2.5 hours.
As for the last paragraph,
"Why are you all screwed up?" Because we weren't born rich and have a lot to lose in a second (or the first for that matter) Bush appointment to the White House.
"You are really j.d. here?" You is really grammarical mastery, Chief! I would respond but I'm not sure what you mean. A lot of the posters who mention their lives point out that they're m
"You are really j.d. here?" You is really grammarical mastery, Chief! I would respond but I'm not sure what you mean. A lot of the posters who mention their lives point out that they're married. Sounds real juvenile.
"This is worse than KKK." Okay, Chief, please, please, please take this line and run with it. Please decide to call us an organization of racist terrorists, because this complete failure on the part of your mind.
"Perpetual whiners when someone wins/gotta rain..." Chief, please explain who won here. Did the dead Iraqis win? Did the universally hated Pesident win anything? Did the American People win anything? Did the "troops" win something (as a former "troop" I assure you we really don't care for this pr bs, it's a lot of standing waiting for nothing, and meanwhile the staff ncos all panic and insist on cleaning up dirtpiles and painting rocks. Did you do any time in a military service, chief?)
Shame on your, Chief! Shame on your excellent expose o
Shame on your, Chief! Shame on your excellent expose on how we're actually the KKK, really a good essay...for us KKK's to burn a poopy cross on!
You wish our President dead. That is illegal. And unpatriotic.
Actually, wishing him dead isn't illegal. Doing something to bring about that death would be illegal.
As for your second stupendously ignorant remark: dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Hillary will have spent approximately 20 hrs. in Iraq compared to shrub's two; she'll talk turkey with troops and officials and not just serve it; and she won't have to be ensconsed in an enormous security system like our cowardly pResident.
Why would the terrorists kill an ally?
Their only chance of taking back the country is to have the liberals in this country help them to get the US to turn their backs on the Iraqi people. The thugs have been moderately successful. They have gotten the 9 Democratic candidates and their hangers-on to incessantly attack the war and the President by killing our troops, aid workers there to help the Iraqi people and innocent Iraqis. There are even liberals hoping that they kill more so President Bush will look bad. All liberal columnists and reporters are on board in trying to help the terrorists get us out of there.
Why would the terrorists kill an ally?
No kidding. Georgie could have flown in with sirens and flashing lights all over his plane, and they wouldn't have touched him. That idiot has boosted their recruiting more than anything any other White House occupant has done in decades. Osama will want to keep him around as long as possible.
There are even liberals hoping that they kill more so President Bush will look bad.
Some evidence to back this up might make you look like less of a raving moron.
Not much less though.
There are even liberals hoping that they kill more so President Bush will look bad.
Some evidence to back this up might make you look like less of a raving moron.
The problem is that you are too busy laughing and clapping for these people to read what is actually being said. The sad thing is that no one, other than a passing conservative, condemns them. The liberal's silence is deafening as they say.
I would be glad to share my collection of quotes from bloggers all over the net someday. I cut and paste them. Someone should read all these someday and see where the liberal movement in this country is really headed.
Here's a typical one that is almost gleeful at the deaths of 27 people and no one condemned him:
"This is good news, Kevin. We even asked for it. (It = 27 dead/400+ wounded in Istanbul, killed and wounded by terrorists.)"
Calpundit Posted by paradox at November 20, 2003 10:56 AM On the bombing in Istanbul
DS:
Paradox is actually a right-wing troll who posts on liberal blogs. Perhaps you are relatively new to these blogs and don't recognize him. I think he was finally banned from Atrios but he used to post his odious hate-filled spew here on Atrios as well. You can hardly characterize his bile a typical of the left.
"It was the first trip ever by an American president to Iraq."
In my circle of friends of well-seasoned travellers, we don't count stops at airports as "countries visited". Otherwise I could claim to have experienced all the colour and excitement of Thailand (spent a couple of hours watching TV in the Qantas Club), the sandy vistas of Bahrain (got some cheap duty free) and so on. Come to think of it, I have probably spent a couple of days "visiting Singapore" if you add all the time I've spentin the airport waiting for the connecting flights.)
Here's a typical one that is almost gleeful at the deaths of 27 people and no one condemned him:
"This is good news, Kevin. We even asked for it. (It = 27 dead/400+ wounded in Istanbul, killed and wounded by terrorists.)"
Sounds to me like a reference to Georgie's "Bring 'em on" and "death=progress" statements. You know, irony? Despite Republican efforts, it's not dead yet.
Interestingly, the Republican puppet President seems more encouraged by violence than anyone on "The Left."
Nice try though. Got anymore?
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
