Bush visits Iraq..

Great Debates
1

From 6 miles in the air.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/6017683.htm

Four F-18 fighters. You never know when those Iraqi fighters might pop out.

Tony Blair wasn’t afraid to go into Iraq.
George Bush was. Gives a new meaning to the word chicken. I shouldn’t be surprised though. He was afraid to go to Viet Nam too.

2

Is this one of those chickenhawk things again?

3

I think your readiness to jump right to calling Bush chicken shows your incredible bias.

There are numerous things to consider. He doesn’t want to look like a conquering braggard, the security situation is not the best right now in Iraq, he doesn’t want to burden the already overworked US soldiers with the security measures needed to safeguard a President…I could go on.

I have no problem with Air Force One having an armed escort when overflying a potenitally hostile region. If they had flown without an escort, you would have called it irresponsible bravado.

Bashing every move of Clinton was not attractive when he was President, and looking for fault in every move of Bush is not either. I can understand you disagreeing with him on policy, or the war, but this is ridiculous and implies that you have run out of substance on which you can legitimately complain.

4

I think he already blew that with his little Top Gun-wannabe stunt on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

5

No Bush fan here (:eek:), but I gotta say this lame OP is not up to your usual standards, Reeder. Is there some good reason you see for Bush to actually visit Iraq, or for him to fly anywhere in the Middle East without a military escort, or for him to have avoided an overflight?

I just don’t see anything in the overflight to get upset over. Now, his remarks in Doha are certainly worthy of debate…

6

Bush makes some people so crazy they jump on the smallest things to criticize him over. There are plenty of important things to criticize, quit sweating meaningless crap like this or the USS Lincoln photo-op. It’s completely inconsequential.

7

I think that a presidential visit would be construed as triumphalism.

Whereas staying away is seen as an indication either that US forces haven’t fixed the security situation, or indeed that Bush is chicken.

He can’t really win in this instance.

8

I don’t know what practical good would come from landing in Iraq, in fact it might give the appearance of entering as a conqueror and further inflame the local anti-American populace. Sure, Bush’s playing dress-up and landing on a carrier was a silly stunt, but you can’t fault him for having fighters escorting AF-1. It probably has a fighter escort wherever it goes now anyway.

9

Remember that Bill Clinton pulled the same stunt after Kosovo…

10

From my understanding, AF-1 always has an fighter escort, of American aircraft, at home and abroad.

11

So was it a top gun stunt when truman did it?

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2003/05/13/20030513_161850_tru.htm

12

How is that relevant in any way?

Let’s just hope no-one tells GWB it’d be a good idea to nuke Japan. :rolleyes:

13

i saw the Iraq flyover on tv, reminded me of driving along in my car, doing 65kms in a 60 kms area, some dude goes flying past you, doing at least 100kms, swerves into your lane, cuts you off!your thoughts go, where are the friggen cops when you need them most?
like, all the Irakis needed was one servicable SAM site, could have easily taken the oppressor SOB out.
course the turd doesnt dare land in Iraq, he is not a liberator, rather a murderer of thier sons and daughters, he would not be welcome… let alone ‘safe’
and at this point he sure as hell doesnt want to inflame them furthur by parading his smug mug on thier turf.
Zan

14

Did either Truman or Clinton don flight suits and land on a carrier in a fighter jet? I was under the impression that Bush was the first to do this but if I’m wrong then set me straight.

15

Lets just hope it provides as much political boost as Dukakis got from riding around in that tank! :smiley:

16

Every time Bush has faced the prospect of physical danger he has always responded with cowardice, whether it was crying to his daddy to get him out of Nam or cowering in a bunker on 9/11. He’s a spineless little half-man.

That isn’t news, though.

17

Oh please. Does that have any relavance here? The President is under extreme security at all times…heck, during the SotU address, where security is as high as can be, they always have one fellow hiding in an undisclosed location so he can rebuild the government in case someone blows up the hall. And this was before 9-11.

Fools trying to use anything they can to slander…muttermutter

18

Bush?

  • the man is guilty beyond any reasonable doutb, of deeds unpardonable, he doesnt deserve protection, most of all at taxpyers expense…
    the war on Iraks WMD was invented, it was totally fabricated.
    we were fooled, suckerd in, ( but not all of us )
    how much more proof do we need that we we decieved?
    i say, off with his head… let him eat cake, so long as it dont cost ordinary ppl, be they Iraki or USA ppl, thier lifes, the mans a fakir.
    at best, a man obsessed with his delusions of grandeur, self preservation, protection of his opulent lifestyle…at worst, a war monger, the deeds of which even Caligular, Nero, Hittler would envy.
    he doesnt promote peace, he insists on war, dominance at any cost.
    Zanthor
19

You must be a Democrat.

20

As President, he is entitled, and indeed obligated to place his own security paramount…

If the WMD were invented, then they were invented and documented by the UN.

Sheesh…later in your post, it was like I could see your mouth moving, but all I could hear was “mwahn mwah bu haff moo…” a la Charlie Brown’s teacher…