Surprise..look who showed up in Iraq

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Surprise..look who showed up in Iraq
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Posted by MrSquirrel on Nov-28-2003 00:05:

Surprise..look who showed up in Iraq

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3244620.stm

Threw me for a loop when I opened the BBC News page and saw that.

While I find it nice that he made an appearance to boost the morale of the troops, I am kinda disturbed by what I see (I know I am biased against him) as another political grandstanding stunt like the Aircraft carrier deal.

Not really a political debate topic...but it is a political news story.

MrS

Posted by djSlain on Nov-28-2003 00:28:

I would've welcomed him with both arms. GW was giving up (partial) his thanksgiving with his family, to spend it with the troops who were not going to going to be with their family this thanksgiving. Anything to boost the morale of the soldiers in these crazy times is good in my book.

Posted by Psionic on Nov-28-2003 01:57:

It's just a publicity stunt

Posted by NeoPhono on Nov-28-2003 03:46:

Couldn't you say all of politics is a publicity stunt? Elected officials making decisions they think will make their constituents the most happy while calling the most attention to themselves.

Anyway...I think his move was cool as hell. As stated on a news program I saw, this wasn't an unprecidented event. FDR did it many times during the war. I think it was a great way to boost morale along with showing his commitment to Iraq and showing he has the guts to fly right into the heart of it all. (The president landing in Baghdad airport takes some balls IMHO)

You may laugh when I say this, but I think one thing GW has going for him with the next election is that he has proven himself a leader, if nothing less.

Posted by Psionic on Nov-28-2003 04:06:

I do agree that it helps to boost morale. However, it has been known that over the past couple months his approval rating has dropped. He needed to do something like this to get them back up. Besides, PM Blair already took the time to visit troops in Basra awhile ago, so why couldn't Bush?

Posted by imokruok on Nov-28-2003 04:34:

FYI, the third year of a presidency always has the lowest approval ratings, regardless of what the President does. The ~%50-54 level is actually quite good, and higher than Clinton's was in the third and seventh years of his presidency.

There's a natural rebound at the end of the year, and then people start aligning for the presidential election. If the economy continues to grow at the pace it currently is, he'll be in the mid-60's by the end of February.

Posted by Flotser on Nov-28-2003 10:26:

Bush is cool!

Posted by Psionic on Nov-28-2003 13:20:

quote:
Originally posted by imokruok
FYI, the third year of a presidency always has the lowest approval ratings, regardless of what the President does. The ~%50-54 level is actually quite good, and higher than Clinton's was in the third and seventh years of his presidency.

There's a natural rebound at the end of the year, and then people start aligning for the presidential election. If the economy continues to grow at the pace it currently is, he'll be in the mid-60's by the end of February.

I don't think of those trends because they tend to be false sometimes. I mean, at the beginning of the war, Bush's approval rating was higher than his first two years, so you can't make the assumption that all presidents' third year have low approval ratings.

Posted by fuct4less on Nov-28-2003 21:45:

i dont think it was an attempt to boost morale as much as it was for a popularity increase (however little it may be) for the upcoming elections.

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-28-2003 22:03:

I think it's awesome how he went over to see the troops! ^_^
Flotser,I agree.Bush is cool.^_^

Posted by DaveSZ on Nov-29-2003 00:27:

Most of the Muslims who were interviewed by reporters in Iraq took it as an insult that he didn't stay longer to receive their hospitality (the ones who supported him). Hospitality is very important in their culture.

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-29-2003 00:35:

Posted by nic01445 on Nov-29-2003 01:44:

quote:
Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
Bush is a busy man. He has a million places he has to be.. I think we should all just be happy that he went to go see the troops.^_^

yeah who cares about iraqi people. it's all about us us us.

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-29-2003 01:48:

quote:
Originally posted by nic01445
yeah who cares about iraqi people. it's all about us us us.

That's not true, Why do you think we went into this war in the first place? To liberate the Iraqi's. It's not all about us us us.

Posted by nic01445 on Nov-29-2003 01:54:

quote:
Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
I think we should all just be happy that he went to go see the troops.^_^

this is what i'm talking about. we put our lives above theirs. it isn't right.

Posted by NeoPhono on Nov-29-2003 02:27:

Sounds like the Iraqis would be pissed no matter what. If he doesn't come at all, he's "neglecting" the region. When he does come, he doesn't stay long enough. I realize they're wanting to show their "hospitality," but when Iraqi "hospitality" equals missles in donkey carts and car bombs, I think it's pretty smart to decline some grand showing of Iraqi "hospitality." They should realize that Bush is the marked man of all men in Iraq right now, and be happy he even had the balls to go there at all.

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-29-2003 03:00:

quote:
Originally posted by nic01445
this is what i'm talking about. we put our lives above theirs. it isn't right.

excuse me? These are our troops we are talking about! We should value their lives the most!

Posted by MrSquirrel on Nov-29-2003 05:15:

quote:
Originally posted by DaveSaenz
Most of the Muslims who were interviewed by reporters in Iraq took it as an insult that he didn't stay longer to receive their hospitality (the ones who supported him). Hospitality is very important in their culture.

Well I have not read up more on the topic but as far as I could tell from the reports on the radio this morning on the way to work no one outside of the military "base" at Baghdad Airport knew that he was there (though it is hard to miss a 747-300 with a shiny underbelly and the 2 tone color scheme of tail number 27000 flying by) until after he had left Iraqi airspace.

I can also understand why no president would walk through the streets of a city in such a volatile place. Think back 40 years to the reason why the presidential car is a tank masquerading as a Cadillac, that happened to a generally well liked and admired president in the streets of an American city.

While I would not mind a sudden loss of office for the current chief executive, I want it done in a fashion that guarantees me that Cheney is not the person to step in automatically. He is infinitely more dangerous than the chimp.

MrS

Posted by King_Mack on Nov-29-2003 17:01:

quote:
Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487
excuse me? These are our troops we are talking about! We should value their lives the most!

then you're calling Bush stupid to send those precious troops in to battle in a country where there is no business to be in...no?
A little hypocritical if you ask me, he's sending in MORE troops into a really rough area where soldiers are dying when the war was 'officially' over, and you think its kind of him to take less than a day to go visit these heroic people that has literally slaved for months and months when they were said it would take much less? It doesnt take much effort to jump into a luxury jet..escorted by heavy security. Sure, he misses thanksgiving, big whoop..he can have it the next day. Heck, he can name a "thanksgiving pt 2" cuz he has the power to. Instead of pulling a publicity stunt like that, how bout he gets some sort of plan to pull these ppl back to their homes..where THEY can spend time with their family to make up for the other 8 holidays they missed

Sorry, I just get a little irritated when people praise Bush as if he's some sort of saviour.

Posted by Psionic on Nov-29-2003 17:20:

What's also hypocritical are these families who hate Bush because their children are dying in the war. It's not Bush's fault that their children decided to enlist in the army. They knew what could happen. I hate those types of people.

Posted by DR86 on Nov-29-2003 20:28:

Hillary was in Afghanistan and Baghdad...thought i'd throw that in this thread.

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-29-2003 20:52:

quote:
Originally posted by King_Mack
then you're calling Bush stupid to send those precious troops in to battle in a country where there is no business to be in...no?
A little hypocritical if you ask me, he's sending in MORE troops into a really rough area where soldiers are dying when the war was 'officially' over, and you think its kind of him to take less than a day to go visit these heroic people that has literally slaved for months and months when they were said it would take much less? It doesnt take much effort to jump into a luxury jet..escorted by heavy security. Sure, he misses thanksgiving, big whoop..he can have it the next day. Heck, he can name a "thanksgiving pt 2" cuz he has the power to. Instead of pulling a publicity stunt like that, how bout he gets some sort of plan to pull these ppl back to their homes..where THEY can spend time with their family to make up for the other 8 holidays they missed

Sorry, I just get a little irritated when people praise Bush as if he's some sort of saviour.

No,I'm not calling Bush stupid.Bush is a brilliant man. Military men and women, are meant for this job obviously. We should care about them,in battle or not. They protect our nation everyday. (My father is a retired Lt.Col I have nothing but the most respect for military personel.) My mother also served for a while.

No one else would stand up to terrorism... So America did something about it.

and yes,It takes a lot of effort to get on a plane,have a 30 hour trip,on thanksgiving just to see your troops.. Especially when you are the president. He has a million other things he could be doing, and he could have stayed with his family on thanksgiving..but he didn't. He went over to Iraq to be with the troops.That takes guts. Not a publicity stunt. He cares about our troops.
The only person(s) pulling publicity stunts are the Clintons,No doubt of that.

Bush isn't the saviour, But he's a great man.

Posted by trancaholic on Nov-30-2003 01:40:

Posted by WhoaNellie1487 on Nov-30-2003 02:25:

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
I agree with you. If the whole enchilada was not meant to be a publicity stunt, I wonder why they allowed reporters to be there.
About Nelly: There's something about Nelly: Something 2hardcore4you or similar...

If you are speaking about me. You are spelling it incorrectly. It's Nellie, Not a y.

Posted by Tudo Beleza on Nov-30-2003 06:38:

Bush's panic visit is like of a thief that comes in the night
| By Abdul Hamid Ahmad, Editor in Chief | 30/11/2003

The head of state of the strongest nation on earth will normally not make a sneaky and panicky visit to a country which is wholly occupied by his troops, unless he is terrified and unsure of his own safety.

That was what US President George W. Bush did when he sneaked into Baghdad to try and lift the morale of his soldiers there by sharing their celebrations on Thanksgiving Day as claimed by the US Administration.

But the trip was counter-productive because Bush appears to have demoralised his troops, as the visit was surrounded by lies from the Administration. In doing so, Bush has confirmed the Arab saying: "Trying to improve it, he spoilt it."

Lied to the public

According to news reports, Bush flew 27 hours non-stop to spend just two and a half hours with his troops. His Administration, like the previous ones, lied when it said two days before the trip that Bush planned to spend Thanksgiving Day with his family and that he would send a telephone message to his troops in Iraq.

Instead, all of the sudden, he turned up in Baghdad. It means that the American people are being lied to by their own Administration and government. This of course had nothing to do with security arrangements for the trip because there is a difference between lying and keeping something secret.

But let us now forget about the lying issue because we already know the US habitually lies through Bush himself, his defence secretary, national security adviser and the rest of the Likudish gang in the Departments of State, Defence and other institutions.

We tasted their lies as they prepared for the war against Iraq and as they launched that war.

Our focus here will be the scared President's trip to a country which is entirely occupied by his forces. It is a strange formula of course, although Bush is the second American President after the late president Dwight Eisenhower to go to a country occupied by the US forces. But there is a big difference between the two visits.

Bush made the trip under the cover of night and it was shrouded with secrecy and lying. Eisenhower visited his forces in Europe after World War II during daylight and it reflected victory and self-confidence.

It was unlike Bush's panicky trip which demonstrated only fear and, perhaps, defeat despite his hollow assurances of victory to his soldiers.

Bush's lightning trip to Baghdad produced only this outcome, although of course US propaganda will propagate different results.

We all saw how US troops, who are demoralised and upset, were paid a secret and surprise visit of less than three hours by their President and Supreme Commander. How can such a visit by such a scared President lift their already undermined morale?

The US Administration could have announced Bush's visit in advance and at the same time taken precautionary security measures. I can't see any contradiction in such a procedure given the United States' enormous military and intelligence might. With such a well prepared visit, Bush could have sent a strong message of self confidence and triumph to his demoralised forces in Iraq.

Fear of the situation

The sneaky trip under the cover of night produced just the opposite. It illustrated lack of confidence and fear of the situation in Iraq and was more like an infiltration by thieves than a morale-lifting trip by a president� how can Bush's troops now trust their ability to stay in Iraq if their own President's comes to them panicking under the cover of night?

Bush's lighting trip to Baghdad has actually hijacked his troops' self-confidence and could also have the same impact on the American people. These people are led by a government of lies and today it acquires two new characteristics - fear and panic.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/o...rticleID=104150

Pages (2): [1] 2 »