President Makes Secret Trip To Iraq

[Queergrrl]

How cool was that?

[Brad]

Wanna hear an interesting quote he said?

"We thank you for your service, we are proud of you and America stands solidly behind you."

Isn't that funny? Considering recent polls indicate the majority of Americans thing continuing occupation is a bad idea, and that they never should have gone in there in the first place.



Let's see what Mr. Matthew Good had to say on the subject:

Publicity. These days it?s stronger than policy. Take President Bush?s recent surprise visit to Iraq, for example. Darkly ironic that it should occur on an American holiday that began during the US Civil War, that last Thursday set aside by President Lincoln as a national day of thanksgiving. Little to do with the pilgrims and even reviled in antiquity in states such as Texas, ironically, where once Governor Oran Milo Roberts referred to it as a ?damned Yankee institution?.



Yet with a single surprise visit to a sliver of the total troops in Iraq, many have praised the President for simply getting on a plane, going to sleep, getting up, making a pre-prepared speech, serving a few plates of turkey, and then leaving three+ hours later. Of course his people weren?t so stupid as to forget to bring along select members of the press corps (some of whom traveled with the President having been sworn to secrecy). There was no way that the event would not be broadcast to the nation, a nation that now believes the war in Iraq to be a pointless endeavor based on false evidence and promises. So you have to wonder how gullible the US public actually is. If the President can show up in Iraq for a quick photo op and warm the cockles of the national heart will the American public yet again blind themselves to the truth of the matter because of a well designed and executed PR stunt? If only the Defense Department planned their activities with such precision.



Mr. Bush should have done it without the cameras. Then perhaps it might have been blatantly sincere instead of riddled with opportunism going into an election year.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[four]

It was entirely a publicity stunt. No one ever said that his advisors were stupid.

[She Lay Gutted]

Oi vey.... what people won't do for publicity these days....

[iAmAStreaker]

Ugh. Bush is such a stupid git. He really thinks he's fooled somebody with that 'surprise' visit to Iraq. All he wanted was for people to think of him as a sincere, caring president who should be relected..But instead he made himself look like an ass to the people who recognized a publicity stunt when they see one.

[E_D_N_A]

sincere caring person my ass!!!!!! ya im sure.....

[Cuttooth]

Major campaign points for President Bush. And then again, what President would not shamelessly pull such a stunt (especially in such a war) to gain public approval when his numbers are so low?



I tell you what though, it worked. A lot of people are now saying, "wow, what a great guy" and it will help him a little bit. Unfortunately, it wasn't sincere. Unfortunately, this war isn't sincere. Nice way to boost your campaign Mr. President.

[Doh!-Nut]

Yea and those tears in his eyes must have been fake too. Must have been the soliders perfume.



Wake up people. I know you're young rebelous teens itching to "diss the establishment and illegally elected Bush" but lets consider the fact the support for the war was at 65% before he even made the visit.



I bet someone just went OOPS.



But congratulations you guys for seeing the "truth" thank you.

Unfortunately, this war isn't sincere.

Yea damn those unsincere wars. I mean what's sincere about people dying?



P.S. I wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.

[mandapanda1221]

i thought it was awesome of Bush to do that lol! if i were a soldier, that would make me feel really warm inside lol

[Doh!-Nut]

Then again remember these words my friend:



"Never attribute to malice what could just as easilly been attributed to stupidity."

[four]

Originally posted by Doh!-Nut@Dec 2 2003, 09:04 PM

Yea and those tears in his eyes must have been fake too. Must have been the soliders perfume.



Wake up people. I know you're young rebelous teens itching to "diss the establishment and illegally elected Bush" but lets consider the fact the support for the war was at 65% before he even made the visit.



I bet someone just went OOPS.



But congratulations you guys for seeing the "truth" thank you.

Unfortunately, this war isn't sincere.

Yea damn those unsincere wars. I mean what's sincere about people dying?



P.S. I wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.

Saying that the majority of the US public supports it is not always a good thing.

[Doh!-Nut]

Then again the premise that he only went to boost ratings because they were paltry?



OOPS I hear?

[Cuttooth]

Originally posted by Doh!-Nut@Dec 2 2003, 07:04 PM

Yea and those tears in his eyes must have been fake too. Must have been the soliders perfume.



Wake up people. I know you're young rebelous teens itching to "diss the establishment and illegally elected Bush" but lets consider the fact the support for the war was at 65% before he even made the visit.



I bet someone just went OOPS.



But congratulations you guys for seeing the "truth" thank you.

Unfortunately, this war isn't sincere.

Yea damn those unsincere wars. I mean what's sincere about people dying?



P.S. I wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.

And, you are the kid who calls himself the "realist", the one who sees himself seperated from all the "rebellious teenagers" who live off of impulses and emotions.

However, I like to look at this action realistically, too. The President's primary intentions for this war was oil. You can say Saddam was a threat, you can say he had WMDs, and you can say we were liberating the people. But, this administration is a money mongering administration. Bush shut down hundreds of environmental regulations, including some that were installed during Nixon's presidency, for the sake of campaign contributors, who coincidently walk along side President Bush's family and administration (Oil businesses, some of the most environmentally unsafe industries known. )

Halliburton had a contract to the oil months, perhaps even YEARS before Iraq was invaded. Halliburton has an organization that talks business with the Pentagon due to Halliburton's involvement with countries such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia whom they have been affiliated with for decades. I think it is quite a coincidence that the United States' two largest confrontations with Iraq has been while Dick Cheney, former Chairman of Halliburton Oil, has been involved in the administration.

My point being, while the world looks at Iraq as a dissolving, greedy project, Bush's numbers begin falling. So, when Bush goes to eat Thanksgiving with the soldiers, his numbers will go up a bit. Now it looks like he's there with him. I hear people saying, "what a great man!" and it makes me sick.





So, there you have it Mr. Realist. Mr. Mature. Mr. Adult.



Besides, 65% is an awful support percentage for a large war. Vietnam was around 63% at the height of the war.



Thanks.

[Doh!-Nut]

The President's primary intentions for this war was oil. You can say Saddam was a threat, you can say he had WMDs, and you can say we were liberating the people. But, this administration is a money mongering administration.

A Realist eh? Will here's the no-spin Realist reply to that summation:



Good. Why not get money and oil while were at it? Like Saddams doing anything worthwhile with it. (Oh wait, the food for oil program that ended up failing, my bad).



The USA can:



- Finish up the work of the first Gulf War.

- Save peoples lives.

- Gain a foothold in the middle east.

- And get profit for doing it!



The perfect plan.

Besides, 65% is an awful support percentage for a large war. Vietnam was around 63% at the height of the war.

I'm sorry...when I see a majority (or any credible) Americans going around burning draft cards and carrying "baby-killer" signs maybe I'll see the corrolary.

[Cuttooth]

Originally posted by Doh!-Nut@Dec 2 2003, 07:40 PM

The President's primary intentions for this war was oil. You can say Saddam was a threat, you can say he had WMDs, and you can say we were liberating the people. But, this administration is a money mongering administration.

A Realist eh? Will here's the no-spin Realist reply to that summation:



Good. Why not get money and oil while were at it? Like Saddams doing anything worthwhile with it. (Oh wait, the food for oil program that ended up failing, my bad).



The USA can:



- Finish up the work of the first Gulf War.

- Save peoples lives.

- Gain a foothold in the middle east.

- And get profit for doing it!



The perfect plan.

-Encourage terrorism

-Shit on foriegn allies

-Dissolve the UN

-Waste more American lives for a useless cause

-Encourage Foreign AntiAmerican Sentiment

-Lose credibility (WMDs? Where?)

-Abandon Afghanistan and the war on terror

-Kills thousands and thousands of Iraqi Citizens

-Install a failure government with a dictator (The US installed Saddam)



The world hates Bush. Everyone. That's not a very good person to have running your country, now is it?

I'm sorry...when I see a majority (or any credible) Americans going around burning draft cards and carrying "baby-killer" signs maybe I'll see the corrolary.

Hey, lets look at the scenario differences. High schoolers and college students were going to fight the war. Friends! So, people were a little more concerned with the war when their friends are coming home slaughtered. Who wouldn't be protesting? Especially once one looks into it and realizes, hey! not only are my friends dying for this, but I might too? But, with this war there is no draft so the war seems far away for most people, so there is a lot less protesting and a lot more apathy. So, of those polled...65 percent support. I guarantee the "I don't know" percentage is relatively higher than that of Vietnam.

[Doh!-Nut]

-Encourage terrorism

-Shit on foriegn allies

-Dissolve the UN

-Waste more American lives for a useless cause

-Encourage Foreign AntiAmerican Sentiment

-Lose credibility (WMDs? Where?)

-Abandon Afghanistan and the war on terror

-Kills thousands and thousands of Iraqi Citizens

-Install a failure government with a dictator (The US installed Saddam)

That's right, let's do nothing. It's much better then gaining a foothold in the middle east knocking on Syria's door. Seems to me doing nothing would encourage terrorism more.



I'm sorry, but saving Iraqis is a useless cause? Scuse me? And I'd like to see the total number of Iraqi civilians dead.



So your saying it's ok to install Saddam but not take him out? And foreign allies like France, the one that gave Saddam the Nuclear Reactor? We wouldn't want to offend them now would we?



Dissolve the UN...that's a good one. If the UN hinges that much on the US its not really much of an international organization now is it?



Wait wait, Afghanistan is the "war of terror"™ but Iraq is not?

But, with this war there is no draft so the war seems far away for most people, so there is a lot less protesting and a lot more apathy. So, of those polled...65 percent support. I guarantee the "I don't know" percentage is relatively higher than that of Vietnam.

And yet Bush is sending innocent soldiers to die? The soldiers over there are ones that specifically signed up to fight. It was their decision, and not to be taken lightly.

[Cuttooth]

Originally posted by Doh!-Nut@Dec 2 2003, 08:10 PM

-Encourage terrorism

-Shit on foriegn allies

-Dissolve the UN

-Waste more American lives for a useless cause

-Encourage Foreign AntiAmerican Sentiment

-Lose credibility (WMDs? Where?)

-Abandon Afghanistan and the war on terror

-Kills thousands and thousands of Iraqi Citizens

-Install a failure government with a dictator (The US installed Saddam)

That's right, let's do nothing. It's much better then gaining a foothold in the middle east knocking on Syria's door. Seems to me doing nothing would encourage terrorism more.

Our presence in the Middle East is what encouraged terrorism in the first place. How? Our good, good, friend Israel. We weren't attacked for the hell of it, man. So, now that we take two Muslim countries, kill thousands of their fellow Muslims, and use their industry for US interest, that'll scare 'em off! Right? Wrong. That'll give them a little more reason and motivation to attack us. Besides, the foothold was Israel.

I'm sorry, but saving Iraqis is a useless cause? Scuse me? And I'd like to see the total number of Iraqi civilians dead.

Soldiers are not dying for the Iraqi people. The United States isn't in Iraq to "save the people". If the U.S. was all about saving people, then we'd be fighting China or North Korea, or maybe Turkey (who we tried to befriend) or even Israel, right now. Those countries are a little more oppressive. Plus, what about the several oppressed countries in Africa? I'll tell you why the US isn't doing that, because there is no benefit. We don't need to save the people, it just makes us look good if we say it. (I love America, don't get me wrong. I'm trying be realistic though)

So your saying it's ok to install Saddam but not take him out? And foreign allies like France, the one that gave Saddam the Nuclear Reactor? We wouldn't want to offend them now would we?

No, I am saying Saddam is the United States' man for Iraq. Foreign allies like France means money and assistance in wartimes, perhaps when we really actually need it. We could use that, you know.

Wait wait, Afghanistan is the "war of terror"™ but Iraq is not?

How is Iraq part of the war on terror? Even President Bush himself admitted it was not. It was a seperate action. There is no proven or documented connection between terrorists and Iraq.

[Doh!-Nut]

Soldiers are not dying for the Iraqi people. The United States isn't in Iraq to "save the people". If the U.S. was all about saving people, then we'd be fighting China or North Korea, or maybe Turkey (who we tried to befriend) or even Israel, right now. Those countries are a little more oppressive. Plus, what about the several oppressed countries in Africa? I'll tell you why the US isn't doing that, because there is no benefit. We don't need to save the people, it just makes us look good if we say it. (I love America, don't get me wrong. I'm trying be realistic though)

Our foothold in the middle east is Israel? Incase you didn't notice, the Arabs hate the Jews and if we didn't help out Israel the Arabs would engulf them like a bad habit. 60% of Europe thinks Jews have too much power. The rising tide of anti-semitism is real. Israel is in much trouble as you oppressed African nations.

How is Iraq part of the war on terror? Even President Bush himself admitted it was not. It was a seperate action. There is no proven or documented connection between terrorists and Iraq.

You msut admit it's rather convienent that Iran and Syria were giving us trouble and then we're suddenly right on their border.

Foreign allies like France means money and assistance in wartimes, perhaps when we really actually need it. We could use that, you know.

Is this the same France that opposed every US backed endeavour in the UN?

[Brad]

Doh-Nut, you asked to see the total number of civilian dead. At this time, it is between 7927 and 9758. That's a lot of civilians killed. I don't think he's saving many lives. Besides, war is the business of taking lives, not saving them.



Now I wonder just why those silly Iraqis despise the US so much?

[four]

Throughout this thread I get really angry and worked up, then I read Cuttooth's posts and am okay again because he spoke the truth... I would just like to thank you for that Cuttooth.



And Doh!-Nut, you remember a little thing called the 6-days war? Isreal can hold their own.