|
Grex > Agora47 > #195: Is that Air Force one? No. It's a Gulfstream. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 101 responses total. |
tpryan
|
|
response 28 of 101:
| 
Dec 1 13:37 UTC 2003 |
I think the British Airways pilot should be honored. "Oh"
may be the phrase of the year from someone who got a clue.
|
jp2
|
|
response 29 of 101:
|
Dec 1 13:52 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 30 of 101:
|
Dec 1 15:38 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 101:
|
Dec 1 15:51 UTC 2003 |
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)
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 101:
|
Dec 1 15:55 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 101:
|
Dec 1 16:37 UTC 2003 |
"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.
|
klg
|
|
response 34 of 101:
|
Dec 1 17:19 UTC 2003 |
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!)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 101:
|
Dec 1 17:28 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
klg
|
|
response 36 of 101:
|
Dec 1 17:37 UTC 2003 |
(Thank you, sir. At the risk of being repetitious, we point out that
some will complain about anything.)
|
jep
|
|
response 37 of 101:
|
Dec 1 18:15 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 101:
|
Dec 1 18:20 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 39 of 101:
|
Dec 1 18:39 UTC 2003 |
You mean like Bush shaking the hand of the last American
soldier to leave Iraq in October, 2004?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 101:
|
Dec 1 19:37 UTC 2003 |
Re #37: that conveys that Bush is interested in his troops but not in Iraq.
He could at least have visited an oil well.....
|
mcnally
|
|
response 41 of 101:
|
Dec 1 20:37 UTC 2003 |
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..
|
gull
|
|
response 42 of 101:
|
Dec 1 21:06 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 43 of 101:
|
Dec 1 22:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 44 of 101:
|
Dec 1 22:10 UTC 2003 |
Halfway around the world and keeping in mind countless stories about
military food, I'd be more concerned about whether the turkeys were
turkeys..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 45 of 101:
|
Dec 1 22:16 UTC 2003 |
(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.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 101:
|
Dec 1 23:10 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 101:
|
Dec 1 23:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 48 of 101:
|
Dec 2 02:06 UTC 2003 |
Hillary met with actual Afghanies, and Iraquis, too. In broad daylight, not
as a thief in the night like W.
|
klg
|
|
response 49 of 101:
|
Dec 2 02:11 UTC 2003 |
re: "#40 (rcurl): Re #37: that conveys that Bush is interested in
his troops but not in Iraq. . . ." (Some will etc, etc, etc.)
|
klg
|
|
response 50 of 101:
|
Dec 2 02:18 UTC 2003 |
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!
|
other
|
|
response 51 of 101:
|
Dec 2 14:40 UTC 2003 |
No, that would be a REPUBLICAN tactic.
|
gull
|
|
response 52 of 101:
|
Dec 2 15:13 UTC 2003 |
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.
|