CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › George Bush makes surprise visit to Iraq
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

George Bush makes surprise visit to Iraq

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
Bush in Iraq
I'tt print some of Drudge article inccase link vanishes

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.

The staff aimed to keep the trip secret until after he had taken off from Baghdad ? no filing was permitted from the site, by the pool or by locals. The President landed with barely a sliver of a moon. He was already in a white Land Rover or Land Cruiser by the time the pool reached the Tarmac. The staff said the motorcade was 12 vehicles plus a military ambulance. Short motorcade of less than five minutes through a blacked out, rutty part of the airport, which looks like a military base. Passed Humvees, dog teams. The President pulled up to the back of the Bob Hope Dining Facility, a huge soft-sided, white building that looks like the most expensive and sturdy type of party tent. The soldiers, we were told about 60

The programs at each place said "Happy Harvest Thanksgiving 2003 Baghdad, Iraq." On the front were the logos of the First Armored Division ("Old Ironsides") and the logo of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Iraqi Freedom. Menu was boiled shrimp with cocktail sauce, roast turkey and cranberry sauce, baked ham, prime rib of roast, glazed Cornish hen, sweet potatoes, buttered mash potatoes, savory bread dressing and corn bread dressing, turkey gravy, buttered corn on the cob, seasoned green beans; pumpkin, sweet potato, pecan, apple and cherry pie; assorted candies and nuts; assorted salads; assorted breads and rolls; sparkling grape wine; eggnog and assorted beverages. On the table were non-alcoholic malt brew and sparking grape juice.

Soldiers were at long tables with paper tablecloths showing harvest scenes, with soft drink with Arabic writing. The high-ceilinged hall was hung with American flags and the tables had paper, pop-out turkeys.

The event had been set up with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Paul Bremer, the chief civilian administrator. When the President arrived, the soldiers were still thinking those would be the speakers. General Sanchez said, "God bless you for all of your sacrifices," and hurriedly introduced Ambassador Bremer. Bremer said he had Thanksgiving greetings from the President. But then Bremer, hamming it up, looked toward stage left and said, "Let's see if we've got anyone more senior here." Then the President came out and the room erupted even before he reached the stage, with soldiers standing on chairs, standing on tables to bark, hoot, yell and "Hoo-ah!" their approval.

xxx

The President then plunged into the crowd to meet with the soldiers. He served food and worked the entire length of the long building. The President seemed to be into the serving thing. "What do you want?" At one point he said, "How many do you want, one or two?" Secretary Card worked the crowd separately. The President did not eat while the journalists were in.

Xxx

Private Stephen Henderson, 19, of Inglewood, Calif., an Army infantryman, part of 1st Armored Division, 1st Brigade, 1st Battalion, 36th Infantry (136 Spartans), Task Force 137 ? has been in Iraq 1.5 week and expects to be here five or six more month.

"I've never been so surprised. I had no idea ? not a clue. I feel uplifted. I almost forgot I was even here."

Xxx

PFC Mark Hansen, 29, of Hillsborough, N.J., an Army field artillery surveyor (sorry no unit ?my bad), re the President, "I never thought he would be here. I'm proud to have him as the commander-in-chief. You can't beat it." Re Iraq: "It's frightening. Once you here the first shot, your adrenaline is pumping and you're in the game."

Not only a great thing to do for troops but a great political move.
post #2 of 35
Amen. And a-men.
post #3 of 35
Seeing our troops is great.

"Surprising them" with an oncoming election year is transparent and cheesy, as if they would have their morale LESS uplifted if they knew he was coming in advance.

I don't personally loathe the guy, and I'm sure any number of Dems would've done the same, but it still stinks of bad motives.
post #4 of 35
Never been more proud of the man.
post #5 of 35
Not true. You're never less than worshipping of him.
post #6 of 35
My god, even most Dems are giving him some credit for this move.

It was nice, it was ballsy, it was politically saavy, it was generally a cool thing to do, and a dangerous thing to do. I'm proud of him.

Also, most of the world's intelligence is in Iraq, and no one tipped off that he was coming. Now THAT is secrecy, and a pretty impressive feat.
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
Not true. You're never less than worshipping of him.
Oh grow up. I thought you were above such petty remarks Micah.
post #8 of 35
Yeah, our troops just love those Iraq surprises...

Shameless, meaningless photo op. Classic Bush.

I mean, good for him, serving soup to the troops... especially since it's his fault they're there dying needlessly in the first place.
post #9 of 35
We can expect the Bush reelection campaign to use this photo op in their TV spots in the near future.
post #10 of 35
Thread Starter 
It's really sad how some can't see past their hatred of Bush and see this as a good move on his part. Sure it has minor political positives but I think most open minded people see this as a moral boost to the troops.
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
Sure it has minor political positives but I think most open minded people see this as a moral boost to the troops.
Minor political positives? Underestimate much?

I'm sure it was a moral boost for the handful of troops who got to meet the Prez, but a better moral boost would be for Bush to stop hacking away at the veterans benefits they'll be relying on when they retire (if they live that long). A moral boost would be explaining just why they're being picked off day-by-day in an unofficial guerilla war launched under motives that have yet to be proven. A moral boost would be having a President who doesn't proclaim "bring 'em on!" in the face of rising attacks on his troops.

Anyone who thinks Bush did this as a selfless Thanksgiving gift without a thought for the PR angle is woefully naive about modern politics. He was there just long enough to get the photos taken, just long enough for it to be a story and then he flew out of there.

It's a publicity stunt. A bold, ballsy publicity stunt, sure, but a stunt all the same.
post #12 of 35
The troops shouldn't be there. They shouldn't be dying. They're fighting, and laying down their lives by the day on the basis of a moronic, monosyllabic monkey's fundamentalist and supremacist agenda - an agenda which has been proven utterly false on any number of occasions in recent months.

Am I happy for the troops that they got to meet their president? Absolutely. Those guys deserve every lift they can get.

Am I saddened that people can't see this as the cold and calculated PR exercise with Stars And Stripes and Dramatic Music that it clearly is? Absolutely.

And to the 'Republicans' or 'Conservatives' who immediately tar anti-Bush sentiments with 'Democrat' or 'Liberal' labels - STOP. It only serves to compound the notion that your political ideals are inherited - ethos by assocation. Which is a simultaneously sad and very very scary way to be.
post #13 of 35
I was going to post this, but I got beat to the punch. Are there politics involved in this? Sure there are. It's much better for the President to be seen having Thanksgiving dinenr with the troops than it is for him to have it with his family at home. Does that make this any less of a good thing? No. When I heard about this last night, it just reinforced the feelings I have about Bush. He could have made it known to everybody, but I think the element of surprise was one of the key things here. He kept it completely under wraps until after it had happened, probably partly for security, but mainly to really surprise the people on the ground. Then he stuck around and talked with them and served them dinner.
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by sorro
I was going to post this, but I got beat to the punch. Are there politics involved in this? Sure there are. It's much better for the President to be seen having Thanksgiving dinenr with the troops than it is for him to have it with his family at home. Does that make this any less of a good thing? No. When I heard about this last night, it just reinforced the feelings I have about Bush. He could have made it known to everybody, but I think the element of surprise was one of the key things here. He kept it completely under wraps until after it had happened, probably partly for security, but mainly to really surprise the people on the ground. Then he stuck around and talked with them and served them dinner.
Yawn!!!....FUCK BUSH.
post #15 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by David Manning
Micah, come on.

If they'd known he was coming, they iraqi opposition would've tried to kill him. There would've been a ring of shoulder-launched SAM's around the city, and a nice welcoming committee at the airport.
He was at risk, even with the surprise. Nobody knows where these roadside bombs are, now do they? Any land route in Iraq right now could be deadly.

That's absurd to say the "surprise" was for safety reasons. If we have 100,000 plus soldiers that cannot protect ONE President on his way to and from the airport, then I guess the "terrorists" have won.
post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by CTDeLude
Oh grow up. I thought you were above such petty remarks Micah.
Have you ever been less than worshipping of him? You always seemed to take pride in it. Nothing petty about noticing what you yourself were proud of. I don't know why that's different now.
post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Anyawatchin Angel
It's really sad how some can't see past their hatred of Bush and see this as a good move on his part. Sure it has minor political positives but I think most open minded people see this as a moral boost to the troops.
Who here has NOT acknowledged that it boosts troop morale? Who here has NOT said it was a "good" move on his part?

We're simply questioning the motivation (is it "minor" political or "MAJOR" political?) and that's where we differ. Hatred has nothing to do with it. But if it works for you to try and write off ANY Bush criticism as the result of "hatred," go with it.
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
Have you ever been less than worshipping of him? You always seemed to take pride in it. Nothing petty about noticing what you yourself were proud of. I don't know why that's different now.
Worship?

The last thing I recall saying about him was that I was both disappointed in the fact that the judicial nominees were getting short changed AND that government was growing WAY too much. And I said those a good month or so ago. Lately I haven't had anything to say about the man period. Or more correctly anything but East Asian matters and the military. Hardly worship. But yes there are indeed times when he makes me proud because here is our President doing something like this. Sure it has some political value and such. But it was also the RIGHT thing to do. Whether there is political gain or not that should never stop a President from doing what is right and good for his people.

Frankly I found your comment disappointing, especially coming from you who had shown himself better than that. If it came from anyone else (besides Jacob maybe) than I wouldn't have commented at all.
post #19 of 35
So all you guys who despise Clinton thought it was great when he did the EXACT SAME THING four years ago on Thanksgiving in Kosovo, right?

When Bush has the balls to visit the funeral or gravesite of one of the hundreds of soldiers who have died to secure his re-election, then maybe I'll praise him... on second thought, nope. He's still an evil, calculating bastard.
post #20 of 35
Taking issue with something doesn't necessarily mean you don't worship it. If "worship" is making you uncomfortable, let's try "adore." You are never less than adoring even when criticizing him. You adore President Bush. Would that be fairer to say?

I think Bush should've done it, too. It's a wonderful gesture. But its purity was massively undercut by the "surprise" element which had nothing to do with safety but a lot to do with political convenience.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...tics-headlines

Hilary Clinton and Jack Reed ANNOUNCED they were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our soldiers. They have MUCH less security than Bush does, yet here they are announcing it beforehand. I wonder why they could do it and Bush couldn't?

And don't give me the "Well, the President is a much bigger and more valuable target" bit. They've tried Wolfowitz, aid workers, soldiers, cops,.....anybody. ANY American target is attractive.

That is what Bush should've done. Instead, he allows this wonderful gesture (the pure act of spending Thanksgiving with our troops) to be undercut by political posturn on his part.
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Singer
So all you guys who despise Clinton thought it was great when he did the EXACT SAME THING four years ago on Thanksgiving in Kosovo, right?
I was out of the country at the time, so I didn't hear about it, but when the papers talked about it in the context of Bush's visit to Iraq, yes, I did think that it was great that Clinton did the EXACT SAME THING four years ago.
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
Hilary Clinton and Jack Reed ANNOUNCED they were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our soldiers. They have MUCH less security than Bush does, yet here they are announcing it beforehand. I wonder why they could do it and Bush couldn't?
And let's give Hillary a shout out for spending Thanksgiving in Afghanistan, that was good of her too. Let's spread the kudos around (seriously).
post #23 of 35
Oooohhhh...zing.

Aaaaaaaaaanyway, if we can't protect one military procession from their airport to an base with 100,000 troops in place and armed, then I guess we never won anything, now did we?

Meanwhile, I guess even though routine Red Cross workers and Iraqi cops have been big targets, 2 major US senators are chopped liver .

Besides, according to Bush logic we started the war there so we wouldn't have to fight terrorists on US soil, so shouldn't "Bring 'Em On!!!!" Dubya and his security detail fight them at the airport and along the way to the base so our troops don't have to get murdered by them in the field?
post #24 of 35
"Bring 'em on, but let me get the hell outta here first, ok?"
post #25 of 35
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Micah Robinson
Hilary Clinton and Jack Reed ANNOUNCED they were going to Afghanistan and Iraq to meet our soldiers. They have MUCH less security than Bush does, yet here they are announcing it beforehand. I wonder why they could do it and Bush couldn't?

And don't give me the "Well, the President is a much bigger and more valuable target" bit. They've tried Wolfowitz, aid workers, soldiers, cops,.....anybody. ANY American target is attractive.

That is what Bush should've done. Instead, he allows this wonderful gesture (the pure act of spending Thanksgiving with our troops) to be undercut by political posturn on his part.
While getting Wolfowitz might have been a feather in the cap for the Iraqi's, Bush would have been the whole bird. You can't be serious when you say Bush isn't a bigger more attractive target. That's like saying we's settle for Saddam or Osama's Lt instead of the big guy.

as said before if Bush announces every gun, suicide bomber, and missle would stike every possible target in Bagdad in HOPES to get Bush. Then when a few hundred soldiers and civillians die you can say it's Bush's fault for all the deaths so he can get a cool PR shot.

And yes it was cool of Clinton to visit in Kosovo. It was also cool when Bush sr visited Kuwait before the 91 war. And I saw neither as a PR stunt. As much as people may despise Clinton or Bush they are both decent people with flaws.
post #26 of 35
I REPEAT: If it is okay to use US soldiers as bait to draw out terrorists, then why is it not okay to use the HIGHEST-RANKING US soldier as bait to draw out the most terrorists?

What military leader would ask his men to do something he won't do himself? That's just shameful.
post #27 of 35
Yes, my question is insanity, but the Bush admin SAYING that our troops are over there to draw out and fight terrorists is not.

I am the loon here. The President is a military genius. Carry on.
post #28 of 35
Why does he have to raise troop moral anyways? I thought the mission was accomplished.
post #29 of 35
I'm no fan of Bush. He always comes on like an ornery Texan, and that annoys me. He surprised me yestersay, when I woke up to the news on CNN, and his schtick actually worked on me. He did seem natural. I agree, it's what presidents are supposed to do, and it's a step in the right direction for the guy, who has travelled little. I admit it was brave of him to go to Bahgdad. I think I wanted him to express clearly whether his administration has resolve to strive for a positive outcome in Iraq, and he did toss us a crumb in that respect.
post #30 of 35
This is probably the single Bush maneuver I can say 'good on ye' about, but it doesn't change my personal opinion of the man. He would have faced a PR disaster if he hadn't done it, ergo: he had to do it. In my opinion, he should have gone in much sooner and not waited until he knew political and ideological rivals were on their way. That would have at least earned my begrudging respect. This to me looks like "pre-emptive self-preservation."
post #31 of 35
I just love how the media have gotten so pushed out of shape over this. As if they can keep a secret.
post #32 of 35
I love how Bush dishes out some turkey for the troops and, between that and Michael Jackson's roving fingers, the media is distracted for yet another week from asking where are all these weapons of mass destruction? Where's the evidence of Saddam and Osama plotting together? Why is the White House skirting around the issue of what they knew about 9/11? Why were members of the Bin Laden family flown out of the US during a period of strict "no flights"? Why was all mention of Saudi complicity in 9/11 edited out of official reports? Where the fuck are Saddam and Osama anyway?

Why, in essence, are American and British troops dying daily fighting a war we've supposedly already won, and a war that has yet to be justified under any of the criteria laid out before we invaded?

But, hey, let's keep talking about the rights and wrongs about Bush's Thanksgiving Surprise. That's the really important issue, obviously...
post #33 of 35
Where exactly did I say that no other news should be reported? Seems to me that the US media (this vast liberal brainwashing industry) is all too eager to focus on smoke and mirrors while serious questions remain unanswered about the whole War on Terror, its origin and purpose.
post #34 of 35
Gag Order Leaves Troops, Reporters Speechless

Mike Littwin
Rocky Mountain News

Tuesday 25 November 2003

Before the press was herded into the giant hangar in advance of George W. Bush's pep rally/photo op with the Fort Carson troops, we were given the rules.

No talking to the troops before the rally.

No talking to the troops during the rally.

No talking to the troops after the rally.

In other words, if I've done the math right, that means no conversation at all - at least, while on base - with any soldiers. After all, who knows where that kind of thing could lead?

Just as an example: It could lead to a discussion about why the president has time to get to so many fund-raisers and no time to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.

There could have been debate, and we all know the risks in debate, as to whether it's really the families' privacy that is being guarded by the rule against photos of coffins as they arrive from Iraq. Or whether it's the president's standing - the latest Gallup Poll showed 54 percent disapproved of his handling of Iraq - that is being guarded from what one general once called "the Dover test."

Or somebody might have wanted to reminisce about Cpl. Gary B. Coleman, 24, of Pikeville, Ky., giving flesh-and-blood detail to the chilling statistic that Coleman was the latest casualty from Fort Carson, a post that has now given up 31 lives to the war in Iraq. Coleman, who was on patrol when his car crashed into a canal, trapping him inside, left behind a wife he had married only weeks before shipping out.

read the rest here
post #35 of 35
Maybe this should be in the humour forum, but Mike Moore addresses Bush's Turkey Trip, from Alternet:

Quote:
(...)
It was also a good idea that you made the "press" on that trip to Baghdad pull the shades down on the plane. No one in the media entourage complained. They like the shades pulled and they like to be kept in the dark. It's more fun that way. And, when you made them take the batteries out of their cell phones so they wouldn't be able to call anyone, and they dutifully complied – that was genius! I think if you had told them to put their hands on their heads and touch their noses with their tongues, they would have done that, too! That's how much they like you. You could have played "Simon Says" the whole way over there. It wouldn't have been that much different from "Karl Says," a game they love to play every day with Mr. Rove.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › George Bush makes surprise visit to Iraq