“Bushista” checking in.
Our “National Security” is a very complex animal. Very learned men and women who are highly trained and experienced have determined that “the best defense is a good offense.”
Its about the big picture, which includes invading countries which have been percieved as possible threats.
I see a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on here.
How many of you are really shooled in intelligence/counter-intelligence, international affairs, anti-terrorism…
You don’t know what they know…not even close.
The military campaigns will and must continue.
Bush, as any leader, truly takes great pains sending troops into harms way.
But it is neccessary for the greater good of our country.
Obviouly not or they wouldn’t fucking be there. He clearly has no conscience at all about killing his own troops to boost his election campaign. The guy is a raving sociopath.
Well, gee, Dio… You know I’m a big fan, nothing but love for ya, etc. But that’s over the top, don’t you think? He’s a doofus, not a demon. You’re kinda morphing Jar-Jar Binks into Darth Vader. Don’t forget our old pal Lord Acton: “Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be explained by stupidity.”
By the way, who are you taking to the Trotskyist Ball?
If it’s all about the oil, not WMDs or saving the Iraqis from themselves, Bush should say so. I concur that it IS all about the oil. The Saudis are going down sooner or later, probably sooner, and 9-11 was a wakeup call to the fact that they could no longer control the terrorists bred by their Wahhabist religionists. I think the smarter thing to do would be to wait for the Saudis to fall and then pick up the pieces, whuile taking opporunity to clean house of the Wahhabist AND the terrorists. That would be a LOT of housecleaning, but the invasion of Iraq seems to me to be … kinda Baroque.
… if we’re talking oil …
EVERYTHING depends on oil and if you ain’t got it, the most you can do is stand around and scratch your ass. Oops, I forgot that’s what liberals do best!
Y’know, an energy policy that doesn’t depend on foreign oil just keeps looking smarter and smarter … something us liberals have been pushing since the 60s. Bout damn time you conservatives caught up. Maybe in another 40 years you’ll figure out how stupid Iraq is …
Conservatives talk a good game, but I notice that their leaders tend to be a bunch of chicken hawks, ready to risk others’ skins but not their own.
xtisme, Tedster and milroyj, I think your premises are flawed. In the military:[list=1][li] Showing disapproval of a VIP is not a viable option. [] Dissenters will generally avoid a VIP visit, regardless of his importance.[] Television is edited. We may never know if someone really did disapprove of the visit. [/list=1]Therefore, at broadcast time, there could only be happy faces at the Thanksgiving dinner. [/li]I believe the President’s visit was:[ul][]In poor taste.[]A temporary morale-boost for our troops.[]A misrepresentation of my American beliefs.[]A misrepresentation of my wishes as an American. A cynical ploy that further cements the “Ugly American” image in the minds of the rest of the world.[/ul]
Mr. B…MY premise?? Your points don’t reflect my premise (such as it is) at all. All I said so far in this thread was that this stunt was politically motivated, that all politicians pretty much do the same thing…and I took exception to some rant by DtC on Bush begging. Oh, and I made some joking comments to the amount of vitriol being splashed about by all sides…hehe, business as usual on this board whenever the anti-christ, Bush, is mentioned. Other than that, I have no dog in this fight to be honest. To me, its politics as usual, unfortunately. Now…if THAT premise is flawed, by all means show me the error of my ways.
However, since you ask so nicely (lol), I’ll lay out my position (such as it it) in reference to what you posted:
From Mr. B
In poor taste? I don’t see it that way, unless all politically motivated events are ‘in poor taste’. To me, the term ‘business as usual’ covers it better.
True, but I see this as more incidental. To me, this was more about politics than troop moral, though I’m sure it factored in there somewhere.
How did this misreprent your beliefs? Even if it did, and not to be harsh, but so what? The real question should be…did it misrepresent Joe Americans (i.e. the majority view) beliefs? I’d say the answer is…no.
Again…your wishes…or my wishes…taken individually mean zippo. The real question is again…Joe Americans beliefs. Again, I’d say it did not.
lol. Well, I suppose you might have a point there. My guess is, NOTHING GW could do, short of dieing convientely, would EVER produce any other kind of image to ‘the world’. He’s basically in a no win situation as far as anything he can do…either to you OR to ‘the world’.
Personally, again, I think that this was a pretty smart political move on GW’s part, possibly tempered with his real desire to actually make a gesture to the troops and the American people. He’s a guy that sees things in complete black and white IMO, and this kind of gesture I think would appeal to him. But the larger motivation, again IMO, is simply what it is for all politicians that do such things…getting re-elected.
Frankly, I think both sides are wrong, here. I really can’t get worked up about the Bush visit. Sure, it may be hypocritical and self-serving, but hey, there are many more actions like that, both on his part and the part of every other politician. I just don’t see any need to be angry about it.
OTOH, I don’t think this action makes Bush any better of a person, nor does it make his policies any more right (nor does it make him any worse personally, or his policies wronger). He did a good thing, for probably cynical reasons. I just don’t see any reason for anyone to really change their opinion about him, not even to admire him any more than you may already. It’s just not that worthy.
Oh, and even if Bush had visited without media attention, the nation at large WOULD have found out about it. How? The visited troops themselves! You think they would’ve kept their mouths shut after the fact, especially since there would have been no need for secrecy then? You think that columnists would have been able to resist writing about it, no matter when they found out about it (and find out they would have)?
Actually, the more I read Dio’s pointless vitriol, the more I think of the scraggly guy on the streetcorner with the bullhorn and the sandwich board, shouting about how we must all repent or God will send his flying saucers to disintegrate us all with their death rays.
Bush is a “murderer”. Uh-huh.
Bush is a “psychopath”. Oh, sure.
Bush is a “sociopath”. Yeah, whatever, Dio. Here, have some more lithium.
Well, to be fair, if you believed, as Diogenes does, that Bush sent troops into Iraq on deliberately falsified information for political and economic (oil-wise) gain, with full knowledge that there was no other reason to invade, those labels would be fairly accurate, wouldn’t they?
You can argue that he’s wrong about that, of course, but I think those labels are pretty accurate based on what he does believe.
It seems to be a fantasy of conservatives to pretend that liberals only fabricate the notion that their draconian policies affect people’s lives. So when Democrats point out that republican policy has a direct connection to starving children, they roll their eyes. When we point out that war on civilians kills babies, they do that little thing with the whistling and the circling their ears with their finger. It seems ludicrous to them that public policy and military action has consequences. Hence my conviction, expressed in other threads, that conservatives don’t strike me as reflective. Dio isn’t the scraggly guy on the streetcorner, Dewey. He’s the clown in the Kirkigaard fable who tries to convince the audience the theater is on fire and they will all perish, but the audience just points and laughs.
Point #1: You are confusing me with Doc Nickel. I did not compare Dio with a streetcorner loudmouth.
Point #2: The same could be said about liberals when conservative point out how their utopian plans conflict with reality. Do spare me the conceit that all liberals are pure, enlightened souls and all conservatives are shallow troglodytes.
