Well. All of you must admit that he has the guts!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.main/index.html
President Bush visits Baghdad!
- Thread starter Cleopatra
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baghdad george w bush visits
Re: Re: Re: Re: President Bush visits Baghdad!
Shall we move this discussion to the Philosophy Forum?
The courage a man has shown is judged by the circumstances in any case and the current circumstances didn't favor an open visit. It's only a week since the last hits of Al Qaeda and yet he went to Baghdad.
CFLarsen said:It doesn't? Hmmm....interesting point. What does show exceptional courage, then?
Shall we move this discussion to the Philosophy Forum?
The courage a man has shown is judged by the circumstances in any case and the current circumstances didn't favor an open visit. It's only a week since the last hits of Al Qaeda and yet he went to Baghdad.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: President Bush visits Baghdad!
Except Blair beat him by almost 6 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2947434.stm
Cleopatra said:
Except Blair beat him by almost 6 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2947434.stm
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,561
[size=1/2]Like mathematician John Forbes Nash...[/size]
Karl Rove is doing this all strictly by the numbers
Karl Rove is doing this all strictly by the numbers
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
I knew that the resident Bush-haters here couldn't bring themselves to admit that it was a gutsy move and an honorable tribute to the troops stationed there.
I think that this same level of liberal delusion and hatred are what's keeping Dean afloat, and it's what is going to sink the Dems in November.
I think that this same level of liberal delusion and hatred are what's keeping Dean afloat, and it's what is going to sink the Dems in November.
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
crackmonkey said:
What's so gutsy about a 2.5 hour unannounced visit? He's even surrounded by troops. He's probably safer there than in Washington.
Or do you think he left his 700 strong entourage in Britain while he was on his little visit? Well, maybe the chefs- no time for lunch- but the bodyguards et al?
You have a pretty lenient definition of 'guts'.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
Perhaps you were unaware - there have been continuing attacks in Baghdad. Surface to air missiles have been fired at planes and copters, mortars and rockets have been used... not too much of this in the USA, pal.
It galls you, doesn't it?
It galls you, doesn't it?
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2002
- Messages
- 7,561
Hey, I'll take the bait, though I hate nobody.crackmonkey said:
Hmmm. Without family connections the man would probably be a nobody today.
I guess you got me.
But gutsy? How? Obvious, perhaps. An honorable tribute to the troops plays well on a holiday.
Hard for you to accept that .043 follows a mere Clinton?
It was PR for re-election. Pure and simple. Politicians will do many things that are a gamble to be re-elected, and the position of US president is one of the biggies. So Bush was simply gambling.
Incidentally, he was pretty safe - I don't think his cojones are THAT much bigger than most guys. For example, a night arrival was much safer than a daytime one with regard to rocket attacks. He was surrounded by security (and then a big bunch of the toughest military the US has to offer). And the short stay minimised the possibility of bad guys finding out, reacting and striking.
Neh. Good PR for the troops and the re-election campaign, but hardly John Wayne stuff.
Incidentally, he was pretty safe - I don't think his cojones are THAT much bigger than most guys. For example, a night arrival was much safer than a daytime one with regard to rocket attacks. He was surrounded by security (and then a big bunch of the toughest military the US has to offer). And the short stay minimised the possibility of bad guys finding out, reacting and striking.
Neh. Good PR for the troops and the re-election campaign, but hardly John Wayne stuff.
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,815
crackmonkey said:
He arrived at night. Even if they did fire upon him at night, somehow knowing that the 'copter had the big Dubya in it, what were the chances of them hitting?
Nope- still say he has more risk in Washington. At least people know when he'll be there.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
crackmonkey said:
Re: Re: President Bush visits Baghdad!
Of course, if he had not come at all, people would be complaining that he is "abandoning" the soliders in Iraq and "has no guts" to travel there himself, and that his refusal to go there shows he is "disconnecred from the facts on the ground".
Or, if he had come in broad daylight and stayed for a week, people would be complaining that he is taking "unncessaey risks" (part of his "cowboy mentality", of course) which merely "puts the soldiers in more danger"; besides, instead of such "PR visits" he should spend more time getting out of Iraq.
This sort of thing is why I don't really listen to anti-Bush criticism anymore: it is a constant, like an air-conditioner's humming noise, which goes on no matter what Bush does (or does not) do.
As a recent example, consider his recent speech in Britian where he emphasized the need for democratizing the middle east. A very good speech, in my opinion (whether such speeches matter at all is a different issue). Of course, this was attacked as being a "string of unrealistic cliches" (or words to that effect).
But what if he had given a different speech? Had he given a speech not mentioning Iraq, he would have been attacked for giving an "irrelevant speech" which "does not touch on the main issue".
Had he given a speech about the middle east that does NOT include democratizing the area, he would have been attacked for "abandoning his plans" and showing that the "real reason" of the Iraqi war was oil all along.
And so on and so forth... when EVERYTHING Bush does is instanty spinned to be "stupid" or "cowardly" or "for oil" or "in violation of international law", etc., you stop listening, for the same reason you shouldn't listen to other conspiracy theories.
You already know in advance what they're going to say about the "real reason" Bush did X... even if they didn't actually know Bush actually DID X until ten seconds ago, like in this case.
CFLarsen said:
Of course, if he had not come at all, people would be complaining that he is "abandoning" the soliders in Iraq and "has no guts" to travel there himself, and that his refusal to go there shows he is "disconnecred from the facts on the ground".
Or, if he had come in broad daylight and stayed for a week, people would be complaining that he is taking "unncessaey risks" (part of his "cowboy mentality", of course) which merely "puts the soldiers in more danger"; besides, instead of such "PR visits" he should spend more time getting out of Iraq.
This sort of thing is why I don't really listen to anti-Bush criticism anymore: it is a constant, like an air-conditioner's humming noise, which goes on no matter what Bush does (or does not) do.
As a recent example, consider his recent speech in Britian where he emphasized the need for democratizing the middle east. A very good speech, in my opinion (whether such speeches matter at all is a different issue). Of course, this was attacked as being a "string of unrealistic cliches" (or words to that effect).
But what if he had given a different speech? Had he given a speech not mentioning Iraq, he would have been attacked for giving an "irrelevant speech" which "does not touch on the main issue".
Had he given a speech about the middle east that does NOT include democratizing the area, he would have been attacked for "abandoning his plans" and showing that the "real reason" of the Iraqi war was oil all along.
And so on and so forth... when EVERYTHING Bush does is instanty spinned to be "stupid" or "cowardly" or "for oil" or "in violation of international law", etc., you stop listening, for the same reason you shouldn't listen to other conspiracy theories.
You already know in advance what they're going to say about the "real reason" Bush did X... even if they didn't actually know Bush actually DID X until ten seconds ago, like in this case.