Is that Air Force one? No. It's a Gulfstream. President Bush and his staff pulled of the secret of secrets on thankgiving when he snuck out of his ranch, boarded Air Force One, and flew 15 hours to Baghdad, Iraq to have dinner with 600 troops. In total he spent 2.5 hours in Baghdad. Only 5 people in Iraq new the president was coming. The Presidents mother and father were not even told he would not be at the ranch until after they arrived for dinner. They did not even tell all his secret service staf that he was leaving. after teh Aircraft arrived in Baghdad, a British Airways pilot nearby asked "Is that Air Force One?" Upon which the presidents pilot replied, "No. It's a Gulfstream." The British pilot apparently caught on immediately and simply replied "Oh."101 responses total.
Heh. This is being spun as an attempt to prove that things in Iraq aren't that bad, but the extraordinary secrecy that was needed for the trip seems to me to prove otherwise. When the President can *openly* visit Iraq, we'll know we've really accomplished something. I'm sure, regardless, that we'll see lots of video from this trip in campaign ads next year. In fact, that was probably the main reason for going. He needed some new footage now that he can't use the aircraft carrier landing anymore.
I dunno. Even if you hate him, I think you can give the president some credit for visiting a war zone on Thanksgiving.
An article in USA Today says that Democratic senators Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed visited Iraq just after President Bush. Give them credit, too. I'm happy to see representatives of our government trying to boost the morale of the troops on holidays.
He just wasted some of the taxes we pay. I give him no credit whatsoever for this publicity stunt. However I give the *pilot* some credit. If I were in the military in Iraq I would have thought - "what a dumb thing to do".
I agree with jep -even though I don't like our president, it was a nice thing to do. I'm not sure how the troops on the ground felt about it, though.
Re #4: Considering that a DHL cargo jet had to make an emergency landing last week after getting hit by a missile while approaching that airport, I give any pilot who's willing to fly a big fat target in or out of there a lot of credit. Re #5: The ones who actually got to see him seemed to like it a lot. I haven't seen any quotes from the ones who didn't.
> I haven't seen any quotes from the ones who didn't. Nor are you likely to.
It was a distraction for the soldiers there, and I'm sure they appreciate any distraction they can get from the job at hand.
If you think the president was wasting taxpayer's money by going, do you also think the senators are doing so? I don't see how you can separate the two occasions. Either they're all doing something good, or they're all doing something bad. I think it's good leadership for all three of them, and a welcome show of support. The troops are away from their families for a year, including right through the whole holiday season, and people are dying every day; our government can dang well have someone important over there to have dinner with them. I understand that it's politics for all of the elected officials, and that it's aimed at next year's elections. It's a very good thing that American politicians have to do things to build public support.
I'm sure the servicemen and their families will appreciate the fact that he went over there to increase morale among the troops. Howewver, the rest of us can relax, safe in the knowledge he did it as a publicity stunt and for his own selfish reasons. For a change.
I predict that he will complain, based on intelligence gathered during his two-hour stay, that the press is being too negative about Iraq.
You know, he did also talk to 5 Iraqi leaders for an hour.
...who sat there stunned wondering if they dared to saying anything the least bit controversial...
you really think they fear him taht much? I doubt it.
rcurl what a sour whiner you have become. Stick to science...
And what, in this case, defines "leaders"? I can only assume that it means, "People of Iraqi ancestry whom the American ruling authority in Iraq has vested with the authority to speak for the Iraqi people, whether or not the Iraqi people want to be spoken for by these individuals."
And, in case the above doesn't make it screamingly apparent, this means it is fairly safe to conclude that these so-called "Iraqi Leaders" are entirely unlikely to represent either a threat or any opposition whatsoever to Mr. Bush.
I haven't whined yet, albaugh. I just think that we have a shallow and incompetent president, and I've said so. We know that Bush avoids like the plague the least semblence of direct opposition - see the item on how he forces those that oppose him to stay out of his sight. Since all he can deliver to US are empty platitudes, how should we expect any more substance with "foreigners"? Haven't you seen him making a fool of himself at the UN?
not nearly so much a fool of himself as the previous president did. You just gotta bitch because you didn't want him for president, because he doesn't do what you want. Tough. He is doing the things I believe need to be done.
We'll see. So far, his results are pretty bad. He has set most of the world, both allies and enemies, against us to a higher pitch than ever before. I somehow don't think this needed to be done.
cue the violins
ominious drums might be needed
re #19: > You just gotta bitch because you didn't want him for president, > because he doesn't do what you want. Four years ago, bru, if someone had claimed that thouse were your only reasons for resenting the current president, how full of shit would you have thought them to be?
A few years ago, we had a new President who had rarely if ever left North America, and whose idea of foreign policy involved dealing with Mexico. On balance, I'm glad to see him making impulsive-looking Thanksgiving trips to other continents. I just wish he'd make such visits without invading first. In other words, it sounds to me like a fun trip. I find it hard to get upset about, but this isn't a President who gives me any shortage of other things to be upset about. Senators Clinton and Reed went to Afghanistan, not Iraq, for Thanksgiving. Bush's apparrent abandonment of Afghanistan is one of the things that upsets me greatly about him.
Why didn't Bush meet with the future Iraqi leaders of Iraq when he went there for a visit? Instead all he did was cheer up the troops for 2.5 hours. Britney could have done that.
Because the real future leaders of Iraq would have strung his bowels around his neck.
It was a publicity stunt that I can admire. I predict that there will be those who will recall nothing else about this president but his showing up for dinner announced. None of my tepid praise should mislead one to conclude that I approve of his policies.
I think the British Airways pilot should be honored. "Oh" may be the phrase of the year from someone who got a clue.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:19: How did Clinton make a fool of himself to the UN? If you're talking about the sex scandal thing, most people outside the U.S. pretty much ignored that. Re resp:27: Oh, it was a brilliant publicity stunt. But like the carrier landing, it was essentially a taxpayer-funded campaign ad.
You (and Bush) appear to be the nitwits, jp2. "Bush spent only about two hours on the ground, limiting his visit to the airport dinner with U.S. forces." (http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/i/1107/11-27-2003/20031127094502_30.htm l) "Meanwhile in Baghdad, some Iraqis complained Bush didn't take the opportunity to see firsthand how dire their situation is and were offended he would use their country as a stage for what some saw as an electoral gambit." (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/29/bush.radio.ap/index.html)
This response has been erased.
"The president held a Thanksgiving dinner with a number of officials including US civil administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer, US ground forces commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ahmed Chalabi, member of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), and current IGC president Jalal Talabani." (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200311/28/eng20031128_129209.shtml) Eating with Chalabi and Talabani for dinner, along with Bremer and Rice and other officials hardly constitutes holding a substantive meeting with the (liely future) Iraqui leadership. There have been no reports of meaningful discussions.
re: "#31 (rcurl): . . . "Meanwhile in Baghdad, some Iraqis complained . . . ." (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/29/bush.radio.ap/index.html)" We suppose that one can always find "some" who will complain about anything. (Take Mr. rcurl. Please!)
You are a consistent example yourself. But the view of the Iraqi "public" can only be that there was nothing in it for them. Bush didn't visit Iraq: he visited an American military base in Iraq.
(Thank you, sir. At the risk of being repetitious, we point out that some will complain about anything.)
President Bush did clearly visit American troops stationed in Iraq, not Iraqi leaders, or anyone in Afghanistan, or Fidel Castro, or a lot of other folks. There was nothing in the visit intended for the people of Iraq. None of these facts are in the slightest controversial. Probably there are lots of people -- maybe his parents are among them -- who are miffed they didn't get visited by the president on Thanksgiving. So what?
As jep points out, the visit wasn't for the benefit of the Iraqis, anyway. Not even Bush is spinning it that way. According to him it was for the troops. This shows the huge advantage an incumbant President has when running for reelection. Bush can grab the headlines at will, any time he wants. Look for lots more of this sort of thing around October.
You mean like Bush shaking the hand of the last American soldier to leave Iraq in October, 2004?
Re #37: that conveys that Bush is interested in his troops but not in Iraq. He could at least have visited an oil well.....
With so many genuine, substantive complaints one might choose against Bush and his administration, is it really worth coming across as an unsatisfiable obsessive over something as minor as a goodwill campaign stunt? Remember how creepily fixated all those Republicans seemed who simply couldn't contemplate anything Bill Clinton did or said without laboring to put the worst possible interpretation on it? Don't turn into one of those people..
Re #39: Yeah, I think that's a likely scenario. The chaos that would ensue there probably wouldn't become apparent until after the election.
This response has been erased.
Halfway around the world and keeping in mind countless stories about military food, I'd be more concerned about whether the turkeys were turkeys..
(although to be fair, I ate my own Thanksgiving meal on a military base this year with my sister and some of her officers and their families and the food was quite respectable.)
Re #41: it was an EXPENSIVE campaign stunt on the public dole. But I agree that it is but one small instance of his lack of judgement. There are much more substantive issues against BUSH.
This response has been erased.
Hillary met with actual Afghanies, and Iraquis, too. In broad daylight, not as a thief in the night like W.
re: "#40 (rcurl): Re #37: that conveys that Bush is interested in his troops but not in Iraq. . . ." (Some will etc, etc, etc.)
By the way, will nobody here do the decent thing and tell us that Mr. Bush LIED about spending Thanksgiving in Crawford? Oh, the travesty!
No, that would be a REPUBLICAN tactic.
I wonder if Bush's trip was meant partly to overwhelm any publicity about Hillary's? Republicans seem really paranoid about Hillary running for President, right now.
No. We are not. From where do you get that idea?
This response has been erased.
She has to vote on behalf of her constituents on matters that affect or are affected by the conflict in Iraq.
This response has been erased.
I'm sure she can visit food stamps whenever she wishes.
Re #53: Nearly every conservative talk show host and columnist I've read has done at least one article in the last year about how they think there's a conspiracy afoot in the Democratic Party to set up a Hillary candidacy in either 2004 or 2008. Generally the theory revolves around either Clark being a stalking horse for Hillary, or the Clintons setting up a deliberate loss in 2004 so the field will be open in 2008. William Safire wrote about this last month, for example.
This response has been erased.
Mr. gull You ought to be more discerning. That which Republicans believe is not necessarily reflected by "conservative talk show hosts and columnists" (a very tiny sample of what you might call "Republicans") and vice versa. Quite obviously, the latter are interested in attracting attention (listeners and readers) and will focus upon that which "sells" rather than providing a true picture of Republican interests and beliefs. Thank you. klg
Messers klg(s), We'll bear that in mind the next time you post *any* link from *any* media source to support *any* of your arguments.
Mr. scott. As always, you are too kind. klg
Incidentally, it turns out that the story of the British Airways pilot spotting AirForce1 and nearly blowing the whole plan seems to have been made up by the folks at the White House. Trying to add a little extra drama to the project, I guess. Kinda like the whole WMD thing.
Force of habit?
And you know that picture of the president holding a tasty-looking turkey on a platter, surrounded by adoring troops? Turns out the turkey wasn't real, either. That is, it was an actual turkey, but it was inedible due to the various things done to pretty it up, a decoration instead of a meal. A photo-op turkey, in other words (insert Bush joke here).
Plus, it was probably twenty pound lighter than the real thing, you know, so he wouldn't look like he was struggling to hold it up.
I like this photo-op turkey better: http://www.polizeros.com/images/2002/10/09/bush_turkey.jpg
Heh. THat's a good one.
Gee, you think it might have been a CENTERPIECE!?!?!? Get a life.
you first, stink-o.
This response has been erased.
I'm on the verge of deciding that Bush's annoying persona is actually a stroke of political genius. He can deliberately distort intelligence data to manipulate the country into going to war but because of the personalized loathing he generates among his political opponents for some reason we're talking about the phony Thanksgiving turkey he posed with instead. How cool is that, from Bush's standpoint?
This response has been erased.
what data were "distorted"?
Since the actual data was too super-secret to show us, lest it reveal the identity of intelligence sources (which, of course, the administration would never, never do..) I suppose it might be a bit of a misstatement to say that "data" was misrepresented when most of the flagrant distortions concerned second-hand analyses of data, for which the source material was never publicly revealed. Nevertheless claims about Saddam's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Niger and about the lack of non-nuclear applications for the aluminum tubes purchased by the Iraqis were presented as fact by the administration and have been widely and credibly debunked. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the war, truth values of many of the claims made by Bush and his advisors appear increasingly dubious although the claims themselves are not (yet) provably false. But hey, I'm drifting here. Let's hear more about Turkeygate.
It took me two readings to grok that. Definitely time for my morning coffee.
re #76: I'd better tone it down a bit, then. If it was tough on you, I can only imagine the effect on klg..
Not to worry, Mr. mcnally. Evidently, you missed the news concerning Saddam's payment to N. Korea for nuclear weapon technology. You probably also missed the recent article in the Weekly Standard which demonstrated the extensive cooperation among Saddam and al Quaeda.
Yes, the turkey was a for-show-only centerpiece. That Bush chose to have his picture taken with the pretty bird instead of a drab but edible one is relevent to the extent that much of this item (as well as the larger public commentary)has been devoted to discussing whether the Iraq trip was out of concern "for the troops", or for the opportunity to plaster America with pretty pictures of the president pretending to be showing concern for the troops. Good food--good for troops. Pretty picture--good for Bush, useless for troops.
re 78: Would that be this Weekly Standard article? http://tinyurl.com/xsz4 (excerpt): When the whole manipulated intelligence story started to blow up this summer, Feith coyly told a gaggle of reporters at the Pentagon that his group had come up ?some interesting observations about the linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda.? But the real analysts didn?t share his enthusiasm. In August 2002, on instructions from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the folks from Feith?s shop went out to Langley to brief the CIA on what they?d come up with. And the professional analysts at CIA (and subsequently those in other branches of the intelligence community) didn?t think their work passed the laugh-test. Feith?s shop?s findings turned out to a classic example of what Intel professionals call ?cherry-picking? ? culling through the sheaves of raw data to find the bits and pieces that confirm the desired conclusion while ignoring everything that tends to refute it and all the while turning a credulous eye to unreliable sources. ?If anybody doubted that there was such a thing as intelligence with a [predetermined] purpose, this is a case study,? says retired CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson. ?Just because someone says something and it gets ?classified? stamped on it, doesn?t necessarily mean it?s true.? Now, let?s go back and ask: What?s the background of this memo on which the Standard piece is based? As the article reports, the memo, dated Oct. 27, was sent from Feith to Sens. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) The article further says it was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. In other words, the committee asked Feith to back up his outlandish claims about connections between Saddam and al Qaeda and he forwarded them a copy of his shop?s dossier ? pretty much the same one the professional analysts in the intelligence community decided more than a year ago was barely worth the paper it was written on.
No, sir. It would be the issue of approximately 3 weeks ago, based on a report to the Joint Intelligence Committee which documented 50 cases of substantial contact between the two parties.
You forget that teh previous president and the United Nations all agreed that the Iraqi's were workign adn had access to weapons of mass destruction. It isn't just George Bush and his administration that got pulled in.
This response has been erased.
Re resp:82: Though it seems to me the UN inspectors asked us for more time, and we denied it. Now Bush keeps telling us that we'll find the weapons, we'll find evidence of links to terrorism, we just need more time. How ironic.
We cannot find Saddam. We cannot find WMD. If we cannot find Saddam, If we cannot find WMD, then he never existed. then WMD never existed. Therefore, Saddam never existed. Therefore, WMD never existed. Makes sense. Mr. gull- The links to terrorism have been found and documented.
Here is the difference. While we have not actually found Saddam, we have found *evidence* that he existed. There were a bunch of statues and lots of people who actually saw him. Not to mention countless images on Iraqi TV up until the point where the US entered Bagdhad. I think if there were similar evidence of WMD, no one would have issues about this. It seems as if containment was working and this war (this very expensive war) was not needed.
Re resp:85: Nice try. But the question wasn't whether WMD *ever* existed in Iraq. The question was whether they existed *at the time*. The purpose of the war was to eliminate the threat from those weapons. If they had already been dismantled, the justification for the war was faulty.
Ms. slynne, There is LOADS AND LOADS of evidence that Saddam had WMD. (Where have you been??) re: "#87 (gull): . . . If they had already been dismantled, the justification for the war was faulty. . . ." Or, to be accurate, "a portion of the justification for the war may not have been entirely correct."
The portion that actually made sense. The other justification the President gave was "he's an evil man," which while true is also true of the leaders of any number of other countries -- some of which are our allies. That makes the decision to invade Iraq look pretty arbitrary.
we know that saddam exists because we have seen pictures of vice chancellor rumsfeld eagerly shaking hands with him
Hmmm.. In klg bizarro-logic, that ties Rumsfeld to al Qaeda!
it's not so bizzare, this administration probably LOVES al-qaeda in a political way.
i think i should try scientology for life experience; what do you think?
"Vice-chancellor" Rumsfeld???
(A new term used by those with a pathological hatred of the current president?) re: "#89 (gull) The portion that actually made sense. The other justification the President gave was "he's an evil man," which while true is also true of the leaders of any number of other countries -- some of which are our allies. That makes the decision to invade Iraq look pretty arbitrary." Ah, yes. It is o.k. for President Clinton to send Gen. Weasley Clark to protect the Albanians in Kosovo from Milosovec, but, of course, a Republican president can't do the same in Iraq.
Refresh our memory, klg... when did Clinton send hundreds of thousands of troops into Albania? When did Clinton make false WMD claims agains Milosovec?
Milosevic, with a little v over the s and a short ' over the c. Czech names end in -ec, not Serbian ones.
(we beg your pardon)
Here's an interesting poll taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, Nov. 21-30: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/qnnaire_12_03.pdf Some highlights: - 55% think going to war with Iraq was the right decision. 41% think it was the wrong decision. They also show results from the past six months, and the gap has been narrowing. - 75% think the most important thing for the U.S. to do as part of a war on terrorism is to capture Osama Bin Laden and break up al-Qaeda. Only 21% think the most important thing is to capture Saddam Hussein and establish democracy in Iraq. - 71% think the UN should take the lead in building a democratic government in Iraq. 26% think the US should take the lead. - 56% don't think the war with Iraq will result in greater peace and stability in the Middle East. 39% think it will. This just about reverses the percentages from a 5/03 poll. - Bush is trailing an unnamed Democratic nominee by six points in the "if the election were held today" question. There are a lot of other interesting tidbits in the full document, including some comparisons between U.S. and world opinion.
re: "- Bush is trailing an unnamed Democratic nominee by six points in the "if the election were held today" question." Which is just slightly more than the nearly 4% margin of error. An 10% did not respond.
Yup. But he used to have a clear lead.
You have several choices: