That should have been "The war has nothing to do with protecting me or anyone else.
My point was he made the troops happy.
That, ALL By ITSELF, was a good thing.
That is all.
What’s your point here?
Then the administration has to be aware of the effect it has outside the US, and the US armed forces specifically. There are many other things GWB could do to make the troops happy. Like visiting Iraq the day before, or the day after, Thanksgiving.
I have seen no evidence that he made troops happy. I know he’s made plenty of them dead, though.
Specious at best.
No one seems to have mentioned one salient fact: the Bush administration keeps telling us that things in Iraq aren’t going as badly as the “liberal media” tell us they are. If they’re right, why is it that the only way the President can visit Iraq is by using extreme cloak-and-dagger measures, by never leaving the airbase, and by clearing out within a couple of hours? Sure looks to me as if things in Iraq are perhaps a lot worse than the media are reporting.
Exactly. Thanks for seeing my point so clearly.
If it was truly only meant for the troops, then why should we know he’d done it?
That being said, I agree with John Mace (and I think I said as much before he even pointed it out) that it would be pretty difficult to acheive this. However, it’s what I would have preferred. YMMV.
Perhaps Bush could have said that the event was only meant for the soldiers, and asked the media to simply turn the cameras off for a little while, out of respect for that?
Then again, perhaps I’m giving the media a little too much credit there. They’re not known for their respect. 
(No offense intended, I used to work in mass media… glad to be out of it, though)
Sorry to burst your fragile shell, but name-calling is pretty much the definition of ad hominem. You’re no longer addressing the argument, and thus invalidating your own. And you just did it again, nice work.
Next time, just leave out the derogatory labels, mayhap?
Please point out how anything I’ve said was (a) partisan, (b) hate-filled, or (c) sniping. Use of inflammatory language is what’s unwarranted. I believe I’ve made myself clear on why Bush’s little “visit” troubles me as it does. You’re welcome to disagree with what I’ve said, but exaggerating my words and then criticizing your own exaggerations is yet another fallacy.
In short, ugly little strawman you’ve got going there.
And the strawman gets a little bigger, and even uglier.
Actually, I would have been perfectly happy if he’d stayed home and had dinner with Laura and the girls. He wouldn’t even have entered my mind, to be honest.
Perhaps you could have a little intellectual honesty yourself, and put down your broad black brush?
It’s pretty obvious, so I wonder why the question continues to be asked. Some here think that Bush’s visit was a thinly-veiled PR stunt, while others believe that it was a selfless act of a courageous President. There are points of agreement (I, for example, agree that any positive effect it had on the soldiers on the ground is a good thing), but larger points of difference.
Related elements to the debate: The manipualtive tactics of “politics as usual,” the idea that any sitting President might have done something similar, and (though this hasn’t been discussed much yet) perhaps the part the media plays in overplaying something that should have been downplayed.
If you don’t think there’s a debate, why have you gone to such lengths discussing it? Or were you just being dismissive again?
Time to go baste again.
Well, I guess I won’t visit my family for Christmas. I’ll wait until April.
** Diogenes the Cynic**
Hey** Diogenes**, quick! Run to your TV. See all those wonderful military men and women cheering and screaming at the top of their lungs?
See? That’s what makes us think that they are happy.
jjimm
Considering the current state of affairs in Iraq, I wouldn’t use the word “triumphalism,” but I would call it opportunistic. I would also invite you to infer the negative connotation of the word.
As Michael Ellis suggested, this kind of stuff gets pols elected, so I guess this is what you’ve gotta do. Nevertheless, I understand how furriners see these images and say “:wally” and then :smack:. I cringe, too.
Well, in a way…
Michael Ellis, a) Bush’s family reside in Texas and the White House, not Baghdad; b) unless I’m sorely mistaken, your actions don’t have massive significance across the world. Imagine, pre-1776 King George III visiting the American Colonies, and chose Empire Day on which so to do.
So the President of the US should base his every decision on what foreign opinion will be?
I still don’t get what you’re saying. What’s so damn wrong about Bush visiting American troops in Iraq on Thanksgiving. A national Holliday.
No no no! I was saying that attitudes like Dtc’s “If you’re happy about this visit, you’re a stupid duped fool” are the kind of things that, if the Democrats want to win in 2004, they need to stop saying. People don’t like being told that they’re stupid.
Seems Baby Bush learned this trick with someone else:
Opportunistic or not... I found it wierd the speed of the visit. 2.5 hours only. One must conclude the situation in Iraq must be very bad if you need so much secrecy and speed in a presidential visit.
Big shit if he "sacrificed" his Thanksgiving... he didn't even risk staying in Iraq a single day. Let the troops get shot at it... but don't risk poor Bush Jr.No, only the foreign policy ones - and in particular the ones about which a huge number of non-US people are extremely angry.quote]A national Holliday.
[/quote]
It’s not a national holiday in Iraq, which is a conquered nation.
I’m getting the impression that “diplomacy” is something Bush-supporters are blind to.
F4OM jjimm
jjimm lad, next time try quoting me in context, kk? Appreciate that. 
In case its sliped your mente, I’m not a big Bush supporter. Thanks for your support.
-ZXT
What a vanilla comment. Are we all happy with our nummy-nummies then?
He wasn’t visiting Iraqis, he was visiting Americans.
Are you making any sense?
No.