Bush's thanksgiving visit to Iraq: cheers or jeers?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I was just reading reaction to the President’s surprise visit to Iraq for Thanksgiving and was impressed by how disparate reactions to the visit were. There’s a USA Today article that goes along with his line about wanting to ‘pump up the troops with a visit from their President’ and then there’s an analysis article from ABC Online that quotes a range of European and Middle-Eastern newspaper reactions, all of which read the visit as purely campaign-driven. Here are the relevant links:

ABC Online

USA Today

Personally, I can’t stand Bush and I have a strongly cynical perspective on all things political, but part of me wants to believe that there was some degree of purity in his motives. Am I just being suckered by Thanksgiving weekend sentiments?

2

I’m not at all a fan of Bush. I think it was a good gesture. But any president would’ve done the same, I think, so I don’t consider it all that significant…

3

Nice gesture. The troops (for the most part) did seem to appreciate it. I’m sure the Secret Service had a herd of cows, though, trying to make it work.

I think it rates at 60% morale-booster and 40% political stunt.

4

Hate the man. But I must give credit where credit is due: he did a good thing.

Still doesn’t mean he should get a second term…

5

I think his motives were probably 50% personal and 50% political. Regardless, it was unfortunately, an exceptionally good political move.

6

He definitely did the right thing.

7

Ditto.

8

I’d guess that when the Leader of the Free World is standing behind the counter and asking if you’d like a second helping of mashed potatoes…well, could ANYONE hate the guy?

It was a wonderful thing to do and I know plenty of people who teared up this Thanksgiving watching the footage…

9

Cheers.

10

It was the most decent and respectable Bush has done in the past year. However, I’d be a lot more inclinced to believe in the purity of his motives if he wasn’t banning camera crews from filming funerals, cutting veterans off from health care that they were promised, slashing pay for troops who work in danger zones, etc…

11

Hate what the man (and more importantly, his administration) have done, but this was a great move on his part. It’s both politically cunning, as well as honestly moving. Cheers to him for this.

12

Although I’m sure the Secret Service wouldn’t have signed off on this if they didn’t think they could protect him, I have to believe it foolish for a sitting president to put himself in that dicey a situation. There was apparently considerable risk in this trip.

There is precedent, however.

President Truman once flew home to Missouri for Christmas despite terrible weather. The NY Times called it, “… one of the most hazardous ‘sentimental journeys’ ever undertaken by a chief of state”. (McCullough, “Truman”, p. 477)

These are both examples of utter foolishness. If these people are so important as to have a government agency planning their every move, they shouldn’t be permitted to put themselves at such risk. In my opinion, the gains to be had were not worth the risks involved in both examples.

And since Mr. Bush can apparently be protected (albeit briefly) in Iraq, perhaps the Secret Service will think about allowing peaceful protesters in his own country to get within a block of him.

13

I think it was good that Bush went to Bagdhad; however, I think he should’ve stayed there for at least 24 hours, traveled around Bagdhad a bit, seen some of the sights, and taken the time to meet and talk with some frontline troops and their commanders.

I don’t know about you guys, but in my travels, whenever I do a layover in an airport in some city or country, unless I’ve gone beyond the confines of that facility, I cannot honestly say that I’ve visited that city. Also, doing a two-hour ‘dine-and-dash’ under cover of darkness with a select group of rear-echelon types in an airplane hanger on a secured base, is not really visiting the “troops” or a venturing into a “combat zone” in my book. (Hell, I’ve spent more time at my in-laws over the holidays, and haven’t gotten half the credit that Bush is getting!)

Like I said, I would’ve respected his visit much more if he had stayed at least a full day. I also think it would’ve been cool if Dubya took a ride in a Blackhawk or Chinook for a profile flight during the day to see the conditions of the city for himself, or drove down “Ambush Alley” in Bagdhad in a convoy patrol to see what the average soldier has to deal with.

Also, it would’ve been a great morale booster for the troops if he stopped at a forward checkpoint or observation post and talked to some genuine infantry types manning the line. That at least he would’ve proven that he has a pair, in my book at least.

George senior was definitely made of sterner stuff though. Senior showed the size of his cajones with a similar visit to the troops during Gulf I. During that visit, IIRC, senior was decidedly more exposed b/c he visited forward-deployed troops during the daytime, which was a real morale booster to the guys up front at the time.

Also, I think George senior’s visit was more substantive and meaninful than Junior’s ‘dine-and-dash’ stunt. I mean, what’s the average enlisted grunt who does the day-to-day patrolling in Iraq gonna’ say when they hear that their Commander-in-Chief spent all of two hours in an undoubtedly heavily guarded airplane hanger, where he probably had a higher quality and hotter Thanksgiving dinner with better trimmings than they probably got, kibitzing with a bunch of generals and staff officers?

Whoop-de-doo! He might as well have had Thanksgiving dinner in the Oval Office for all they care. It’s not like any frontline or forward-deployed people got to see him, so what was the point?

14

Cheers.

15

I’m sure he wasn’t trying to upstage Hillary. It was mostly political and publicity stunt. It was the right thing to do, probably done for the wrong reasons. “Cheers”, by all means, but let’s not get carried away.

16

Yup. Cheers for the visit; I’m glad it all came off okay, and I’m glad he went.

But it won’t change my vote in 2004.

I don’t even know if the visit was INTENDED to change my vote in 2004, so, all the more cheers in that case.

17

I wouldn’t have had a problem with it if it hadn’t been so quick and hush-hush. The point of a morale visit in a hostile area should be to show that you are confident in the job they’re doing that you don’t need to use these kind of tactics. Just meeting the guy has as much effect as just meeting Brad Pitt -the thrill of being near celebrity. That kind of morale lasts until you’ve finished telling the last person you know.

Further, while he was there he could have taken more time to talk to more Iraqi leaders.

18

I’m cynical as all hell and rabidly anti-Bush, but this made me feel good - for a moment - about President Bush. Even if it was all politically motivated, it still meant something important to the troops. And that matters.

19

This was a complete wank. 100%. Standing at an airport for two hours is not dangerous. It was a cynical political stunt, and I’m dismayed that members of this board fell for it so easily. He wasn’t in danger. He didn’t see the problems faced by the troops or the local population. He went for his visit on Thanksgiving, for two hours, when it would benefit him most electorally. He’s despicable.

20

Very effective propaganda, but I don’t see any other reason for doing it. If he was willing to go all the way to Iraq, surely he could have found more productive things to do than eat dinner with troops? And if I were one of the troops, I think I’d be annoyed at having such a prime terrorist target in the vicinity.