| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Bush in Bagdad for Thanksgiving | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 27 2003, 01:58 PM (829 Views) | |
| Cool Vulcan | Nov 30 2003, 07:57 PM Post #16 |
|
Captain
|
Hillary should've lost that election for her seat in New York, I lost my vote to her . President Bush isn't bad if you should a little repect for your countries leader no matter who.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2003, 11:30 AM Post #17 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I was right... it'd only take a few days for our leftist media fools to get their talking points. I'm amazed at their visceral hatred, though. These are the same people who would, upon finding out that George Bush could walk on water, would chide him for not being a good swimmer! For those who think this was a big photo-op, why didn't he carry more photographers and reporters? Why wouldn't he have stayed longer to maximize the time there? Nope, this was done for the troops! I'm also waiting for someone to claim "he doesn't visit families of troops killed in action." In actuality, NO PRESIDENT does this. Clinton didn't make a habit of it, neither did Bush the Elder, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, et cetera. Bush met with several families PRIVATELY last week, and here's something you didn't know. He PERSONALLY hand writes letters to each family of a slain soldier. This IS a good man, no matter what the Doubting Thomases say. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 1 2003, 12:14 PM Post #18 |
|
Time to put something here
|
There is a simple and good reason for this - he cant visit them all, so he does the only far thing and visits none of them.
My assessment of the man, since he first stated he was running for president. He maybe right or wrong in his policies that is up for debate. But he is a good man and that is what I want to represent me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 1 2003, 12:23 PM Post #19 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
All it takes is one camera to create a photo opportunity. That is exactly what it was…a photo op. A photo of Bush smiling and serving a Turkey to the troops was on the cover of every newspaper (at least in my area), and major electronic news source medium on the Net. Bush’s trip may have been a combination of other things (sincerity, wanting to boost troop morale), but what it ultimately came down to was a photo op. Otherwise, not one reporter or camera (or the White House official photographer) would have been present. The fact that it was a photo op doesn’t negate the fact that Bush did a decent thing or may be an all around good guy. But how about calling it for what it really was…a photo op. Its ok to admit it. All politicians do it...Republican and Democrat alike. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 1 2003, 12:39 PM Post #20 |
|
Time to put something here
|
It all comes down to interpretation of the word photo-op and what Bush intended to do. Yes it was and always will be an opportunity for photographs, - Bush doing anything will always be an opportunity for photographs. But when some one says "it was a photo-op", it means more then "hey they took some pictures of the guy" - It means that the person making the statement believes the true intention of the event was just to take photos, and that everything else was secondary and mattered little to the person being photographed. When a celebrity comes out and has a press conference to annoyance a new movie - That is a photo-op. When the president fly’s in on a fighter jet that can be seen is a photo-op. When the president goes and sees the troops on thanksgiving - that is a much grayer area. Than you have to asses what the man is thinking. Does he not give a dame about the troops and is just there to get his picture taken? Yes - than that is a photo-op. Was his true intentions to pat the troops on the back and be with them, not caring ether way if the press was there (in other words would he still have done it if the press wasn’t there)? Yes - then that is not a "photo-op" as the word has been come to signify. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Dec 1 2003, 01:14 PM Post #21 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
^^^^^ Dante…for the most part, I agree with your assessment. Myself, I have different degrees of cynicism when it comes to ALL politicians and the choices they make (motivation, how many photographers were there, etc). I think deep down, most politicians think first about how their actions are going to be perceived by the public (good and bad), and then they carryout that action with deliberate calculation. Most people go through a similar thought process when making decisions. However, politicians make those decisions on a different level than the average person. Politicians must constantly be aware of their image for re-election purposes. No matter how small/big, good/bad the action, I am convinced that most politicians keep in the back of their minds the thought of how their actions are going to be viewed by the public at large (taking away from the goodness/selflessness of the act itself). As a result, even the most decent of actions…Bush visiting the troops at Thanksgiving with minimum press coverage…is still viewed (by me) as a photo op (even if only a minor one). Bush’s visit to Iraq ranks extremely low on my cynicism chart. I think for the most part, Bush went to Iraq with as little fuss (and few photographers) as possible because he wanted to visit with the troops (boost morale). However, something tells me, that Bush (the politician) didn’t mind (small photo-op) that his photo was being taken (most likely with the knowledge that the photo was going to be sent out on the wire for the morning papers). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2003, 01:50 PM Post #22 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
In keeping with your thinking (at least IMO,
) then I would think this experience would count fairly high in Bush's favor.When I first heard he went, I thought it was a quick stop over on a longer tour. When I learned he took the trip from Crawford, Texas, and back, then my appreciation went up quite a bit. When a politician decides if something qualifies as a photo op, they would also have to evaluate the level of importance of that "op". Obviously doing something for the troops is always going to score points. So the President visits injured troops at Walter Reed or hosts a Thanksgiving meal for the families at a local base in Texas. Sure thing - sure "points" on the PR meter, but virtually no risk. "Trying" to do something for the troops and failing gets you no points. The trip from Crawford could easily have been cancelled anywhere along the way for security issues, but he tried it anyway. Sure visiting troops in wartime is a bigger "prize", but he could have done it in 6 month (when things are hopefully settled down a bit more) and still scored some points on the visit. It may sound strange, but Thanksgiving was one of the hardest days for me when I was overseas. You don't expect someone else to celebrate your country's holidays (Memorial Day, Independence Day, etc.) and others still celebrate Christmas even in non-Christian countries, but Thanksgiving is somewhat unique to each country that celebrates it. If I had been standing in the room that day and seen the President walk in, I would never say a bad word about him again. I may still not vote for him , but I would continue to admire him for having come. It was an unexpected piece of "home" ....
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 1 2003, 02:15 PM Post #23 |
|
Admiral
|
Admiralbill:
Bush and his aids have been masters at making garbage look good. After all the lies Bush has told - directly, half-truths, and by omission - and after all the stupid things he has said, for some reason half the country still respects him. Why? Many reasons, but one part is because of things like this one where an act that really serves himself can be interpreted as a "good thing" and is left ambiguous enough that it can't be proven either way. So why not more cameras? That would make his real purpose too obvious and wouldn't be as much of a campaign benefit... Dandandat:
Yup. That's precisely what I believe. He didn't care about the troops during the Vietnam War when he refused to fight with them. He avoided the draft by having strings pulled to get him into the National Guard and he went AWOL for almost a year while his fellow Americans were fighting in Vietnam. During his Presidential campaign, he stated that he wanted to fight at the time and was willing to train for whatever experience came his way, but the evidence shows requests for transfers, failure to submit for a physical exam, and other things which were obviously intended to avoid any combat. In fact, at one point in his campaign when asked by The Texas Monthly if he had joined the National Guard to avoid the draft, he replied "Hell no. Do you think I'm going to admit that?" He didn't care then and he doesn't care now. Gabe:
I wouldn't respect Hitler if he had the title of President of the U.S., would you? I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler, but the point is the title doesn't automatically earn you respect. The President has to be respectable. Wichita:
That shows you just how effective this political maneuver was... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Dec 1 2003, 02:25 PM Post #24 |
|
Admiral
|
IE, I think respect for the Office of the President (and not necessarily the man) is important. That way, his orders are obeyed, and those in power are unified, regardless of his/their political leanings. But I do understand your concern (Hitler reference). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2003, 02:50 PM Post #25 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Well, I guess that's the difference between you and I, IE. I find a man who left his family and friends on a holiday and flew 28 hours to make a 2 hour stop with the troops to be honorable. You find a man who GOT a draft notice, then pulled strings to get in the National Guard, and then reneged on his Guard service so he could go to school in Europe (where, incidentally, he didn't go to class) to be honorable. Bitch about the American public's "stupidity" in believing in this man all you want - and then look at the 10 "choices" that have been provided. :rolleyes: Talk about "political maneuvering" and nothing else ... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 1 2003, 03:41 PM Post #26 |
|
Admiral
|
How does this defend Bush? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2003, 03:51 PM Post #27 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Who was talking about Bush? You stated:
To date, I've seen no proof of this comment. Who has made this "definitve" determination? I don't need to "defend" innuendo. Try facts - then we will talk. You also said:
In the past, however, you stated that you respected Bill Clinton for doing precisely what you damn George Bush for doing. Sounds like a double standard to me. What a minute ... I am wrong on that. It isn't precisely the same. Bill Clinton reneged on both his draft notice and his Guard duty. He NEVER served his country - George Bush did. Can we assume that, if George Bush completely evaded service as Bill Clinton did, that you would praise him as well? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 1 2003, 05:31 PM Post #28 |
|
Admiral
|
First, the Bill Clinton aside is just that - an aside. No matter how guilty he is of anything, it doesn't defend Bush to point out Clinton's faults... You are attempting to make it relevant here by "exposing" a double standard:
"Precisely"? No, not even nearly the same. Bill Clinton did not agree with the principal of the war. It was not fighting that he was against; it was that particular war. He had the courage to stand up and make his conscience known despite knowing there would be public criticism. And he didn't lie about it. For being honest and true to his conscience (whether I agree with his decision or not), I respect him. George Bush, on the other hand, openly stated (during his campaign) that he wanted to fight at the time and was willing to train for whatever experience came his way. Yet the evidence shows he did everything possible to avoid fighting and avoid training. He also did everything possible to hide it and then, during his campaign, he explicitly lied and said he had wanted to fight. He also claimed to have served in the airforce which was another lie. He never served in the airforce. George Bush now claims to be in full support of his troops and made a big photo-op trip to join them for Thanksgiving dinner. That was about as "sincere" as his dressing up in a flight suit on the aircraft carrier. He supports his troops only to the degree that it serves his own interests. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2003, 05:42 PM Post #29 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Sorry, that isn't only bull, but it is proven bull! He was NEVER AWOL, and certainly not for a year. I've seen the so-called evidence, and as someone who HAS ACTUALLY FILLED OUT AND PROCESSED THAT PAPERWORK, it looks nothing like that.
More BS from that Bushlies site? C'mon, IE, I thought you way too intelligent to fall for a mass of uncorroborated bull$h!t. Come back with something substantial. Tell me some examples of DIRECT lies (and I will easily refute them). Ditto with half-truths. You can never prove a lie by omission. I also believe that "stupid things" is a matter of opinion, isn't it? Are you bent out of shape because he might stammer or mispronounce "nuke-you-ler"? Geez... Funny, weren't you supportive of this trip to Baghdad at first?
What has he done to disrespect the office? Has he had interns performing sex acts on him? Has he fired an entire travel office and replaced it with a relative and a political crony? Has he covered up the suicide of one of his staffers for three years? Has he accepted campaign donations from the Chinese military, Buddhist monks, or Columbian drug dealers? Was Laura Bush able to turn a $1000 investment into $100,000 with no knowledge of the futures market? Did he comprimise national security by attempting to set up "strategic partnerships" with the Chinese? Did he advance another nation's space program by twenty years by allowing classified materials and computers to be shipped to China? Are you angry that he mispronounces a few words, or that he's not as "slick" as his predecessor? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2003, 06:00 PM Post #30 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I see that you have again decided to sidestep the issue and that goes DIRECTLY to my point. Why did Bill Clinton not go to jail or, failing that, Canada? Until you answer that question, in a manner that makes sense to those of us who lived through the period, then your criticism of George Bush is irrelevant because it is inconsistent. My brother disagreed with the war. He stated he disagreed with the war. He got a draft notice. NO ONE was going to take his phone call for a last minute entry into the National Guard. Had they done so, he would have been prosecuted (or sent into the draft) for not showing up to even be inducted into the Guard. He went to Vietnam where he was shot. If George Bush (and incidentally, Howard Dean) got out of active duty due to "influence", how the hell does a person in his early 20's from a small town in Arkansas with no apparent family connections, get a draft notice, negotiate a last minute National Guard position directly with the head of the state National Guard, renege on both and NOT get prosecuted? Public criticism - big deal :rolleyes: I know people who went the CO route who paid dearly for their beliefs. Those are the people I respect. As to your comments about what George Bush "said" or "didn't say" - I can't say. I have never seen documentation of those comments. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


. President Bush isn't bad if you should a little repect for your countries leader no matter who.
) then I would think this experience would count fairly high in Bush's favor.
, but I would continue to admire him for having come. It was an unexpected piece of "home" ....

2:13 PM Jul 11