Just saw on the news that Bush had visited the soldiers in Iraq on Thanksgiving. As much as I might dislike Bush and his politics, I have to give him credit for this. He's a heck of leader in the term of inspiring his people, kudos!

Dunno if any can post a reference to an english source? I can post a danish language link, but I doubt it'd do much good.

EDIT: here's one.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/11/27/thanksgiving.rdp/index.html

Well, it's not so secret now, but cool.

Nothing like a captive audience.

It must be getting near election time. :rolleyes:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20031127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_iraq

That was a really good move of Bush. This should silence his critizisers for a while.

What? Like Saddam is the only one who has doubles... :p

That was a really good move of Bush. This should silence his critizisers for a while. I doubt it. His detractors will probably just call it a publicity stunt.

BTW, it was just a publicity stunt. :D

No, his detractors will merely point out that Bush's having to sneak into the country proves the situation in Iraq is worse than the administration is admitting.

I think the important aspect is the soldiers'. I mean if I was a soldier stationed far away from home, for a cause I wouldn't be sure is considered right or successfull. I'd have my doubts, I wouldn't be very comfortable being there at all either.

Feeling that you have a purpose is a powerful motivator. And in case some of those soldiers die tomorrow, dying with a sense of purpose instead of the opposite, is in my eyes worth admiration to his action. It's a sort of "I share your risk" statement, from the leader himself.

If there's a "real" reason aside that, voting stuff, whatever, I'd say so what? Sometimes the results can be good even the reasons are not.

Lokken -- Take a gander at this story that was kind of a sleeper here just a little less than a month ago. I mentioned to a few friends that Bush would do something grandiose - a media event, rather than something that might be meaningful but may be under the radar screen of public attention. And that is excatly what has happened. The guy had to do something.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17079
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/sun/31123BUSH-WAR-DEAD-RO.html

Oh, come ON. Isn't it possible that maybe, just maybe, Bush wanted to do something to honor the soldiers, and that the resulting positive coverage is an effect and not a cause?

Wolfowitz was almost killed for his last foray into Iraq. If this was a publicity stunt, it's one that could've gone horribly awry - if Bush had retreated before arrival, as his handlers threatened to do if word of his trip leaked early, then he would've been humiliated. Imagine the headline - "Bush Prepares Turkey, Turns Chicken Instead"!

Yeah, I voted for the guy, so I'm biased. Rove can find ways to squeeze political advantage from rocks - he'll find a way to squeeze blood from this, too. But even politicians are human beings, and I think this was a truly 'human' moment - lovely in its very recklessness.

Chandos, so you would find it better he hadn't visited them troops? Bush doesn't have to do anything, especially not go to Iraq in these times, which I still consider totally insane.

Step back and think for once, is this a good or a bad thing? No, it's a good thing. Doesn't good things usually deserve credit? Yes they do. Credit to Bush for doing it!

If you don't consider this a good thing, I'm very interested in why that's so?

Seriously, he was just showing off in uniform before the cameras, not unlike the aircraft carrier episode.

He arrived in total secrecy, spent about two hours there, never leaving the airport and "fled" back to his plane, what a fantastic display of bravery, some balls that man has... or not.

Getting half of Britain under siege for his personal security, pissing even the queen in the process, made him look like a scared little girl. I guess his image needed a little testosterone, but the only thing his advisors could come up with was smuggling him in Iraq like a WMD. All it proves is that Iraq is far from pacified and that Americans aren't welcome there. Some mediatic coup.

As for support to the troops... I'm sure sending them home would cheer them up a lot more, that or the Olsen twins paying them a visit.

Lokken - At first, I really was not going to reply to your post, since my feelings on this topic were already clear. Usually when a post starts out with something like: "I really don't support Bush, BUT...," or "I'm completely opposed to Bush, BUT ...," I know that it's going to be trouble. There are a couple others on this board who like to banter about how they feel this way, but really use it as a lever to open up a thread-line to attack others who just rub them the wrong way, for whatever reason. I'm not saying that that is what you are engaged in. HOWEVER, when I read that: "I should stop and think for once," then I figure someone just wants to get get down and dirty with me, which is just fine with me. It is a step up from questioning my love for America because I won't go along with Bush or the cons.

I really like the REAL Bush suppoters on this board - Hacken Slash, Grey Magistrate, The Great Snook, - to name a few. I admire their conviction, which is not really about Bush. What they have in common is that they are all thoughtful and intelligent and meaningful in their viewpoints. The thing is, all this is not about the man, Bush, but about the country. They feel that Bush is good for this country for various reasons. And the dialogue is suppose to make it easier for us to see our divergent viewpoints rather than to convince anyone to "change sides" so to speak. Sometimes the things that should be the most obvious become lost in the intensity of the dialogue.

This is really about our country. There are those of us who feel that Bush is a bad thing for America, and we have our reasons. We believe that Howard Dean or Ralph Nader or someone similar would be a much better choice at a time like this. And what all this debate proves is that we all really care about what direction America is on right now. There have always been these kinds differences, even since the beginning. I mentioned on another thread about the falling out between Jefferson and Adams (the two Founders I happen to admire the most)over matters of ideology and party differences. But despite the different viewpoints, can anyone say that Jefferson is less of a patriot than Adams? Or that Adams cared less about America than Jefferson? Or that one was more thoughtful or intelligent than the other? I think not.

The point is that when I think about Bush going to Iraq for a few hours for a nice photo-op, my thought process begins with something like this: Is the war in Iraq a good thing or a bad thing for my country and its people? Take it from there.

[ December 01, 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

My point is not about politics, it is not about america. It is about people dying every single day for a goal that seems.. hard to believe. The reasons behind his visit might be that of some political scheme boiling in your head, but the result is non the less more motivated troops instead of the lack thereof.

I don't know if the war is good for your country, personally I think not. But what I do know is that the war is a fact. Now if a simple visit can alter the situation of those men and women dying down there, well I find that worthy of credit.

But then he could just send them home, etc...
Well that is another decision, another time, another action, another judgement.

Now if a simple visit can alter the situation of those men and women dying down there, well I find that worthy of credit.And that is a part of the problem, Lokken, for it does not change that aspect of the war one bit. Yes, I'm sure that the soldiers were grateful that Bush was there to show his support. That is a good thing. But how will that alter the situation for them? What he could do is rethink the kinds of schemes that he is up to in Jschild's new thread. Some of us are familar with these cuts that Bush is planning. Yet, they are kept under the radar screen of public attention. Instead, we hear a lot of coverage about this very visit that you mention - lots of glitter, but nothing of substance.

To step off the Lokken and Chandos the Red political debate and voice my opinion, I feel it is simple. Bush made a mistake by sending troops in in the first place and would be considered if he were to fold and call the troops home. It is therefore seen that everthing he does on the issue of Iraq is trying to fix his mistake.

Publicity stunt it truly is.

That's right, there is a saying; "If you're in a hole, stop digging". If Bush was truly worried about those soldiers he'd do something about it, instead of blowing millions no doubt on his own security to give them a pep talk.

To my mind the act in itself wasn't even that important, a visit from the president, so what? doesn't do them any good. If he really wanted to share their risk, he'd be out there holding a rifle. Besides, encouraging soldiers to kill more civillians (no matter how badly those soldiers are getting whupped) isn't a good thing in any case.

Without wanting to decrease the positive effects this visit may had, i want to make a couple of remarks and pose a question here.
First of all the fact that he visited Iraq was made publicly known after he left Iraq. Secondly he flew in, stayed in the airport, DID NOT visit the headquarters at least, and flew out in a hurry. Maybe this move encouraged the soldiers, maybe not, but if you were a soldier there and saw your president flying in staying inside the airport the whole 2,5 hour he came and then flying away in complete mysticism, how would you feel?

I would feel like he stopped for a tune up on his plane and decided to mingle while he waited. So, slightly upset on the non-visit.

Maybe this move encouraged the soldiers, maybe not, but if you were a soldier there and saw your president flying in staying inside the airport the whole 2,5 hour he came and then flying away in complete mysticism, how would you feel?I know that I would have enjoyed my Thanksgiving "dinner" more if it hadn't been breakfast.

Of course, if he hadn't gone Bush's critics would have produced ridiculous articles like the one Chandos quoted. "BUSH ABANDONS SOLDIERS IN IRAQ" or some such nonsense would've been the headlines.

Of course, presidents don't generally attend the funerals of soldiers.

Chandos does hit the nail on the head with Bush supporters (I'll align myself with Grey Magistrate et al.). It's not about support for the Bush himself -- it's support for the country.

Oh, and if this was merely a publicity stunt, then why were so few reporters brought along?

Well, Chandos, I think I found out why we're speaking past each other. I never meant it would effect the situation in an exterior way for the soldiers, but an interior way.
Yes, I'm sure that the soldiers were grateful that Bush was there to show his support. That is a good thing. This is the core of what I've been trying to say.

The whole situation is crap, not a situation that should have happened at all IMO. I'm just pointing out that here's actually something I find good, and thus deserve credit.

I don't get it. What's the big deal?

He put them there in the first place, why shouldn't he visit?

In the very least he should have choked on a piece of sushi like his dad did when he visited Japan... or maybe gotten a new shiner from one of those suicide pretzel bombers.

A little entertainment can go a long way.

Ah, Lokken, I see what you mean now. I must need some rest because I was so slow at catching on (my eyes are burning with fatigue because of the new baby). Sorry, my bad.

I see that my link has already died to the Arizona Daily Star. The author of that article was a former Ronald Reagan associate. I figured that if the former Reagan people were complaining of Bush's neglect for the families of the former soldiers, that it would not be just a right vs left issue.

[ December 02, 2003, 05:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Bush really shouldn't have taken the risk for a mere PR stunt! (http://www.ucomics.com/chanlowe/2003/11/28/) A blessing he didn't try to stay overnight, like Wolfie so provocantly did ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33090-2003Dec3.html

Bush made clear his support to the troops in Iraq when he requested $80 000 000 000 from congress to continue the "efforts overseas". If he really wanted to be an inspirational leader, he would have spent thanksgiving honoring the soldiers that gave their lives for Saudi oil, er, for Freedom.

He could have had turkey dinner with my friend Paul Dyer, (a poor Canadian who lost his only son uselessly in this bloody conflict and is now alone) and asked Paul what he was thankful for this year.

The only people truly thankful at this point are the American businesses cashing in on the lucrative "rebuilding" contracts.

The only people truly thankful at this point are the American businesses cashing in on the lucrative "rebuilding" contracts. OK, knew this would come up sooner or later. Why should my tax dollars (meaning the money withheld from my earnings) go to a representative of a foreign nation who refused to support the US actions in the first place?

Why should US dollars flow into the coffers of French and German corporations, when US, Italian, Polish, British, Spanish and Iraqi blood stain the soil of that porous land?

This is one of the few recent Bush Admin actions that I can staunchly stand behind. If they weren't with us from the begining, Screw em'. Why should they see the rewards in Marks and Francs (Ugh, I'm sorry...Euro's) for the blood of American boys.

The French were the first, mind you, to get into the food line to take advantage of the swift and ovewhelming defeat of the conventional Iraqi forces...vultures!

Belgium...Norway...can't you please take France and call it your "Province of No-brains and Cahoney's"?

Hey Hack, Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the contracts should be given to France, Germany, or, ahem Canada.

I am suggesting that the only reason for the US to invade Iraq in the first place (other than Saudi Oil, that is) was to create a situation under which there would be contracts to be handed out, and where the US would control the patronage of those contracts.

In the world of legitimate business, this is called a conflict of interest.

In fact, a declassified file from GWI (Gulf War One - and that's mine) quotes Bush as stating that a key reason that the US pulled out when they did was so as not to jeaopardize rebuilding contracts.

Just so we're clear.

Why should US dollars flow into the coffers of French and German corporations, when US, Italian, Polish, British, Spanish and Iraqi blood stain the soil of that porous land?You'd have a valid argument if the approved list didn't include countries who paid mere lip service to the 'coalition of the willing'.

Hmmmmm... In fact, a declassified file from GWI (Gulf War One - and that's mine) quotes Bush as stating that a key reason that the US pulled out when they did was so as not to jeaopardize rebuilding contracts.
I am not particularly aware of the US enjoying any significant windfall of profit in the aftermath of GWI (kudo's Ishmael, we always need new good acronyms). I think if any one nation were to be pointed out as having benefited, it would be Saudi Arabia.

You'd have a valid argument if the approved list didn't include countries who paid mere lip service to the 'coalition of the willing'. Well, as they say at my favorite French restaurant "Monsieur, lip service is better than no service at all". I don't care if some hapless nation only said "way to go, US", and donated a crushed traffic cone, that puts them way ahead of nations who sought to undermine our efforts. They should at least have the integrity to stick to their convictions.

Well, apart from the fact that this has become outrageously off-topic, I would like to say that I don't think it is really worth debating whether the countries that proffited were entitled to or not, but I have to agree it seems to be reasonable to assume that the profits go to the countries involved (whatever side of the field they were on), yes, integrity at least whether it is integrity misplaced or not is still integrity, and should be rewarded as such.

BTW, a conflict of interests is what a war is. I have yet to find one that wasn't fought to benefit at least one of the sides involved, if not both.

Manus has a valid point. We have gotten way off topic. The first Moderator to visit will likely chide us for rambling and perhaps even smack our knuckles. :eek:

If any of you want to continue to discuss the notion of rebuilding contracts and profit from the war, start a new thread and I will join you there to annoy you further.

No, that's Conflict of Interest. Not conflict of InterestS. The difference is that a conflict of interest is when a one party has multiple, conflicting interests (such as a lawyer representeing both the plaintiff and defendant), rendering the party incapable of making judgements true to their interests.

In this case, The US went to war with Iraq ostensibly to uncover WMD, punish sadaam for ties with Al-Qaeda, etc.

Those motives are at loggerheads with the US economic interest in waging war, which are motivated by thirst for profits. Rebuilding is ultimately about moving capital from Iraq to the US and it's cronies.

Please get back on topic or create a new thread on the developing topic.