Bush's secret visit to Baghdad... [Archive] - TD Talk(Formally Dumb Laws)

weldordave

November 28th, 2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Yes...I'm sure there was absolutely no politics involved in this decision...he did it all out the kindness of his little heart...and it wasn't to trump Hillary's visit, NOOO...and it wasn't a photo op....and the fact that FOX News was invited along on this "secret mission" should not lead us to any cynical conclusions...and the fact that he said he stopped by to "look for a warm meal", but never actually ate anything, doesn't show he was being manipulative or anything. Why, heavens to betsy, how could anyone be so callous to think George did this to give himself a spike in the polls?

:) :woof
No kidding. He did not eat anything. I wouldn't expect him to. Dude has Air Force 1 with a full galley of SAFE eats. DUH TIGG.
He spooned spuds onto GI plates. A coup that will not be topped ever. He just won 4 million votes there. Hillary COULD top it with a strip-tease but...well...ya, know. Nothin' says we kicked your butts better than the US Prez servin spuds in your capital on OUR HOLIDAY. :clap

Dave, would you please tone down your language. I have edited it, and will do so if you post something like tis in the future. This is a family board, and the filter is not here to be bypassed by your clever creative typing.

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 09:34 AM

photo op? Bush is the commander and chief. Let him show up{anywhere} and the left always says its a photo op. Let him not show and he is no leader , a coward does not care bla bla bla..............

Let the hilda beast have a photo op and it should be a national holiday. Suddenly we are back to having our pain felt again.

Reason cnn got the boot and vertually no one new was because those reporters cant keep their pie holes shut. We even get one Tom Rosenstiel who is mad because reporters on the trip DID NOT spill it .One tip off and airforce one would have had to skip the trip.He says reporters should tell the truth and always report stuff even when it indangers our president and the troops.
And they just cant figure out WHY they were ignored.

DUH!!!

They did not tell a lot of folks.

http://www.iht.com/articles/119456.html

w1che

November 28th, 2003, 10:44 AM

Hillrod Clinton in Afghanistan with the troops... Yeah I just bet most of them just couldn't wait to see her... :lol .. She would gut our troops if she get the chance just like that pervert she is married to did.. What a low down joke that woman is... :rolleyes:

I hope the few Euro's with brains on this board read what Tig said.. Now everybody in that mess hall knew that Bush didn't just come to Iraq looking for a meal.. They knew he was just making a joke.. Now what do you hear from the Libs.. He lied to our troops about wanting to eat with them.. You just can't wonder after reading that why I think the libs are fools & perverts... Man I need to take a break from this stuff... What a bunch of low life idiots sniffing along behind their leader Hillrod Clinton .. :rolleyes:

AWPrime

November 28th, 2003, 11:24 AM

Bush visit was only a act of politics.

Can you imagen Bush's panic when he heared of Hillary's planned visit?

He simply stopped what he was doing and ran for Iraq.

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Bush visit was only a act of politics.

Can you imagen Bush's panic when he heared of Hillary's planned visit?

He simply stopped what he was doing and ran for Iraq. this thing was planned before the hildabeast did.bush had already been there aw, remember.That was boo hood by the left as well.

jstnomega

November 28th, 2003, 12:40 PM

The IRA bombings in London.

09/11.

Israel seemingly every other day.

Insert your own terrorist bombing/hijacking/killing recollections here.

Which is to say, I think everyone everywhere is now suffering fr 'waiting-for-the-other-shoe-to-drop' syndrom. We're all anxious.

I'm fond of neither this war nor GW, but I think his plan to wage this war 'over there', instead of 'over here', is a good plan. By yesterday' trip to Baghdad to say thanks to the people doing the heavy lifting, I think GW has shown the courage of that conviction. I think that was a class act on his part. He did not have to put himself in harms' way. He could have palyed golf or gone horse riding instead.

Our cynicism is gonna be the death of us yet.

Oh yeah. Major props to Senator Hillary, too. Obviously, she's the only serious Democratic party presidential candidate & smart enough to realize what good PR it is to visit the troops, esp those in a hot war zone. Talking about trumping the rest of the Dem party wannabes! Nice shootin' Hillary!

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 01:14 PM

He said he was going to be in Crawford. BUSH LIED!!!!

Ok,finally some credibility for the lefts Bush lied montra.

Compare bush to the 9 idiots saying the soldiers should not be there.
How many of those soldier do ya think the lefts idea that they are fighting for nothing.that is what they are saying when they say "We should have been fighting in Iraq in the first place".

This is rich. We have some reporters saying that Bush is wrong and should have allowed other reportes;
Philip Taubman, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said that "in this day and age, there should have been a way to take more reporters. People are perfectly capable of maintaining a confidence for security reasons. It's a bad precedent." Once White House officials "decided to do a stealth trip, they bought into a whole series of things that are questionable."

And then we have the same reporters of integrety saying that they should have spilled the beans;

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, criticized the White House correspondents who made the trip without spilling the secret. "That's just not kosher," he said. "Reporters are in the business of telling the truth. They can't decide it's okay to lie sometimes because it serves a larger truth or good cause."

Am I the only one that finds this just to ironic?

AWPrime

November 28th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
He said he was going to be in Crawford. BUSH LIED!!!!

No, he was planing to go to Crawford. But Hillary made him run in panic to Iraq.:)

DEAD ZONE

November 28th, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

No, he was planing to go to Crawford. But Hillary made him run in panic to Iraq.:) ???? she is in afghanistan??????????

Ateo

November 28th, 2003, 02:52 PM

If his visit did boost morale to the guys who are actually in the thick of it over there, I say good. But to think this is some sort of "from the heart" move is incredibly naive. It's PR, but brilliant PR.

See? I've got good things to say too. :)

Ateo

November 28th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by jstnomega
I'm fond of neither this war nor GW, but I think his plan to wage this war 'over there', instead of 'over here', is a good plan. It might be. But that doesn't square with his assertion that this is about helping the Iraqi's. How is it helping them by turning their country into a terrorist magnet, by using it as a stage to fight our war?

I don't see how this can have any meaningful effect on terrorism if terrorists can move freely from country to country. They're not all going to converge in Iraq so that we can destroy them like sitting ducks.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Nothing about Iraq does.

jstnomega

November 28th, 2003, 03:56 PM

Well, just think on it some more, tig. You're almost there.

I'm thinking that these of our enemies find us an easier target & much easier to get to, 'over there', in their back yard, as opposed to what it would take for them to do their thing at the Macy's Thxgiving Day Parade or Knott's Camp Snoopy at The Mall of America.

That's the only rationale for this war that I'm focused on, as it seems to make sense, seems to be working. The rest of the 'reasons-for-this-war-rhetoric' are, imo, unnecessary & counterproductive. Had GW adopted & stuck w/such a position, instead of wandering off into the whole WOMD thing or yammering away about liberating the Iraquis, his domestic political position would be much stronger than is currently the case.

about the other shoe...http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1112845,00.html

sinecure

November 28th, 2003, 04:08 PM

FRom jst's link--

The man, who has four A-Levels, is also thought to have links with shoebomber Richard Reid, the man jailed for life for trying to blow up a transatlantic holiday jet, Sky has been told.

Could somebody explain what an "A-Level" is? ...and what the significance of having four of 'em is?

It's scary all right.

Phreakmeister

November 28th, 2003, 07:50 PM

It has indeed been a courageous trip, although I doubt the security services would let GWB run any risk in this day and age. I doubt they would have let him go if they weren't 100% sure he would come back alive. What remains to be seen is what the net result of this trip will be. Remember the last three times a US president visited the troops in action: Nixon (in 1969) and Johnson (in 1966 and 1967) in Vietnam.

sinecure

November 28th, 2003, 11:43 PM

I'm glad that you feel it was a courageous act too.

Everyone may not agree with or like GWB... but at least he is using his gonads for more constructive things other than boinking fat-butted interns in the Oval Office.

:p :wave

w1che

November 29th, 2003, 12:03 AM

Well you see Phreak the security services doesn't TELL the President what he can or can not do.. They advise him & give him risk factors.. They can also strongly suggest that he doesn't do something but in the end it's the President's decision to make.. Very few if any in the secret service even knew he was going. He went undercover all the way no advance party or any of the other things normally done when the Prez travels...

A great thing coming from a great man...

Ateo

November 29th, 2003, 03:03 AM

Hillary went there too...stayed much longer...not so much of a photo op...didn't hold up any turkeys on a platter for the photographers...didn't wear a military jacket...didn't sneak in and out, went beyond the airport, talked to people, made some substantive comments...is she a hero too?

DustyBottoms

November 29th, 2003, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Hillary went there too...stayed much longer...not so much of a photo op...didn't hold up any turkeys on a platter for the photographers...didn't wear a military jacket...didn't sneak in and out, went beyond the airport, talked to people, made some substantive comments...is she a hero too?

That depends on her motive... Did she do it to inspire and support the troops over there? If so, then it was a good thing. :)

Not everyone that goes over there is a hero in my eyes. Sean Penn, etc. are just looking to bash America for fighting our enemies. (and yes - Saddam was our enemy)

Ateo

November 29th, 2003, 04:14 AM

Maybe it's reasonable to assume that the motivation of any politician who goes over there is self-serving....that also goes for egotistical actors.

Of course political motives may vary in intensity, but isn't it fair to judge such things by the number of flashbulbs going off? Bush's visit may have been positive on some level, but it was extremely over-hyped on all the cable networks the next day...he could've done this with the troops in private if he'd wanted, without bringing reporters and camera crews along. Actions speak louder than words.

jstnomega

November 29th, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
Hillary went there too...stayed much longer...not so much of a photo op...didn't hold up any turkeys on a platter for the photographers...didn't wear a military jacket...didn't sneak in and out, went beyond the airport, talked to people, made some substantive comments...is she a hero too?

Yes she is. HELL YES!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3248466.stm

"She was accompanied by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island."

Never heard of him. Rodham & Reed ticket?

w1che

November 29th, 2003, 01:09 PM

Tigger do you really get more stupid as time goes by because you hate Bush so much or what?? Man you do need help..

Where is Hillary in the chain of command of the military? Clinton went for nothing but political reasons because anything she has to do with the military is only political... Those deadhead politicians have been running over there every chance they get & do nothing but cause hardship for our troops trying to protect their sorry butts with more guard duty ..

Bush on the other hand is the top commander.. The troops work for him, he sent them there, he is the one that can bring them home, he has control over what goes on.. Clinton is doing nothing but trying to set herself up for a run for president in 08.. I hope she does run because you guys will lose another 8 years out of your worthless lives..

JST you don't have to suck up to Tig any more this is not his board or are you just trying to show that you can be as stupid as he is...:smash

AWPrime

November 29th, 2003, 02:01 PM

Top commander is more of a title than a job for Bush, for (I hope for your sake that) he doesn't do any of the important planning.

sinecure

November 29th, 2003, 02:04 PM

Typical... Clinton praised the Officer Corps, while it's the lowly grunt who's doing the work and taking the most risk.

Compare that to GWB's visit to the TROOPS.

w1che

November 29th, 2003, 03:56 PM

Well there you go again AW talking about something you know nothing about.. The Prez.. The over all plan, number of troops used, approve war plan, approve plan changes, look at the political problems vs military.. Day to day operations... No.. but neither are the Generals..

Then you have Vietnam & Prez Johnson ran that war himself.. It was a bad deal but a Prez can do that if he wants to..

It's really troubling AW how little you know about almost everything.. Are you in school or did you drop out?

jstnomega

November 29th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by w1che

JST you don't have to suck up to Tig any more this is not his board or are you just trying to show that you can be as stupid as he is...:smash

w1che, I believe tig is unsuckuptoable. I just like the Lady & I think she did something more positive by going to Chaostan than the rest of the stay-at-home-dem-party-prez-wannabes, sometrhing courageous, if not maybe even heroic. I wonder how many of the stay-at-home-dem-party-prez-wannabes have already booked their vist-the-troops-at-Xmas appearance.

Phreakmeister

November 29th, 2003, 08:36 PM

Talking about heroes: the heroes are not those who dip in and out of the line of fire, who take a quick dip in Iraq and then get outta there as fast they came. The true heroes are those people who are in the line of fire 24/7.

DustyBottoms

November 29th, 2003, 08:48 PM

he·ro (hîr'ō)
n., pl. -roes.

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine.
4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.
5. Not Hillary Clinton

Ateo

November 29th, 2003, 09:30 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=1&u=/nm/20031128/pl_nm/bush_iraq_dcCRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?"

With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq (news - web sites) as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising.
It was White House chief of staff Andrew Card who first proposed the surprise trip -- not the president.

..."Andy (Card), as he often does, said (to Bush) almost in passing: 'Thanksgiving's coming up. Where do you want to go? You want to go to Baghdad?"' Rice recalled, and the planning got under way.

Seven months after his dramatic landing in a flight suit on the USS Abraham Lincoln with its "Mission Accomplished" banner, Bush conceded about the Iraq visit, "I was the biggest skeptic of all."

Instead of a flight suit, Bush wore a standard Army jacket to meet with the troops, and acknowledged he thought "all along" it might be too risky and that he "had a lot of questions" about security.

This shows a) it wasn't Bush's idea, b) he was a little reluctant, and c) it was a PR move...not exactly hero material, but still it was a morale booster.

aclu14

November 29th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Bush sure likes his hyped-up PR shots. The flight suit crap first, now a half-*** turkey dinner? ******* liberal media, you're letting me down!

sinecure

November 30th, 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by aclu14
Bush sure likes his hyped-up PR shots. The flight suit crap first, now a half-*** turkey dinner? ******* liberal media, you're letting me down!

I guess Tig's stones ain't the only ones being ground here by GWB's support of the troops, huh? :lol :lol :lol

Any of the other candidates would give one of theirs just for an opportunity to look as good as GWB!

ACLU--you're a funny kid. :smash

sinecure

November 30th, 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Talking about heroes: the heroes are not those who dip in and out of the line of fire, who take a quick dip in Iraq and then get outta there as fast they came. The true heroes are those people who are in the line of fire 24/7.

...and here's Phreak... again demanding the opportunity and his right to teach the world HIS screwed-up version of English...

See DB's post for your correction, Phreak.

"Me fail English - that's unpossible!" :lol

AWPrime

November 30th, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by w1che
Well there you go again AW talking about something you know nothing about.. The Prez.. The over all plan, number of troops used, approve war plan, approve plan changes, look at the political problems vs military.. Day to day operations... No.. but neither are the Generals..

Then you have Vietnam & Prez Johnson ran that war himself.. It was a bad deal but a Prez can do that if he wants to..

He approves plans! He doesn't make them like true top commanders.

He is only top commander in title. Top approver would be a better title.

w1che

November 30th, 2003, 11:12 AM

Quote from AW.. He approves plans! He doesn't make them like true top commanders.

He is only top commander in title. Top approver would be a better title.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well maybe AW and top idiot would be a better title for you but I'm too nice to call you that...

Phreakmeister

November 30th, 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by sinecure
...and here's Phreak... again demanding the opportunity and his right to teach the world HIS screwed-up version of English...

You don't see the soldiers as heroes then? I'm surprised and disappointed at you, sin.

See DB's post for your correction, Phreak.

Do you know why DB gave the definitions, sin? Take a look at definition number 5 and you will find out.

"Me fail English - that's unpossible!" :lol

Please, if you quote GWB, be kind enough to mention it :smash

Serendipity

November 30th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by sinecure
Could somebody explain what an "A-Level" is? ...and what the significance of having four of 'em is?A-Levels are optional British secondary school courses and tests, studied for and taken at age 16-18, after GCSE tests. To have four of them is not impossible, but is no small achievement - if they are of good grades then the next step is university. Before a load of reforms that came along when I was at school, there were 'O' Levels (Ordinary), and 'A' Levels (Advanced). 'O' Levels were then replaced with GCSE tests.... ....In a nutshell, he wasn't dim. :) HTH

sinecure

November 30th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Thanks for the explanation, 'Dipity.

While I still don't entirely understand, [and I don't need to] at least I'm now aware that they have to do with education.

I was thinking along the lines of some sort of security clearance or something....:woof

DEAD ZONE

December 1st, 2003, 09:42 AM

http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/003435.html

A good rebutal to the "bush does not attend soldiers funerals" crap.

hitlery is no hero for going in where no shoulder fired missles have been loosed at airports lately.

"many questions at home about the administration's policies." Translation: "There are many questions at home about the actions of your Commander in Chief."
Neal.

Is a sick sob that goes into a war zone and plants doubt in the soldiers minds about their mission,and commander and chief.moral hitlery. Or do you not understand that military idea either.

DEAD ZONE

December 2nd, 2003, 11:02 AM

another

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031208-552146,00.html

To be fair to the fallen, the President would have to be at Dover nearly every day. Why this soldier, why this patrol, why the crew of this shot-down helicopter and not another?

But it is more than a question of arbitrariness. It is a question of strategy. There is a war going on. The insurgents represent the remnants of a regime of torture and repression. They have no chance whatsoever of engendering a popular uprising. They have only one way of winning: by making U.S. casualties so painful that America decides to give up and go home.

weldordave

December 3rd, 2003, 06:08 AM

weldordave

December 3rd, 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by weldordave

No kidding. He did not eat anything. I wouldn't expect him to. Dude has Air Force 1 with a full galley of SAFE eats. DUH TIGG.
He spooned spuds onto GI plates. A coup that will not be topped ever. He just won 4 million votes there. Hillary COULD top it with a strip-tease but...well...ya, know. Nothin' says we kicked your butts better than the US Prez servin spuds in your capital on OUR HOLIDAY. :clap

Dave, would you please tone down your language. I have edited it, and will do so if you post something like tis in the future. This is a family board, and the filter is not here to be bypassed by your clever creative typing.
Further, if the adminastrators wanted an et al filter they can include any and all symbols to make up those "naughty words" your "family" find soo offensive. They haven't. Is your position a moderator or a censor? Your ideals of censorship have no place in America. A 4 letter word that begins with "F" and ends in "K" can be replaced with "****", the meaning is still there. So, even with your request to "tone down....not to bypassed with creative typing", The messege would still be **** Y**! Now that phrase contains no vulgarity. It is something in a school book. But of course a Nazi approach would think otherwise. You use your mod status to attack me for past arguments, very Euro of you. I seem to recall a Dutch post which stated something along the lines of "stupid Americans can't tell what we are saying" Yes I do translate them occasionally. That might not be a curse, but is still AS inciteful or needed to be "toned down". But thems your Buds, you impart different rules for them. So, in conclusion, without vulgarity, **** ***.

weldordave

December 3rd, 2003, 06:44 AM

BreakNorth

December 3rd, 2003, 08:07 AM

Dave, do you know how much your American moderators have edited? Idnew, just to name 1. Moderating is not something European. Furthermore, Dumb Laws is not a democracy. This is a dictatorship, led by the moderators. Anything on this forum is here on their mercy and good will. Every discussion here so far could only have been held because the moderators have kept it on. The moderators can do with our messages whatever they want. It's what you accepted when you joined this forum. If you don't like this forum or this policy, you're free to leave, like many others have done before. Noone will force you to stay here.
To prevent any confusion (or actually cause more), I want to add that I disagree with this filter as well. Anyone who can read knows what was meant with f**k, f*ck and f***. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to crack that code.

weldordave

December 5th, 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by aclu14
Bush sure likes his hyped-up PR shots. The flight suit crap first, now a half-*** turkey dinner? ******* liberal media, you're letting me down!
creative typing, aclu. not allowed here. it disturbs the sjax family. please refrain. you might be the next american in his euro censor sights.

weldordave

December 5th, 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by BreakNorth
Dave, do you know how much your American moderators have edited? Idnew, just to name 1. Moderating is not something European. Furthermore, Dumb Laws is not a democracy. This is a dictatorship, led by the moderators. Anything on this forum is here on their mercy and good will. Every discussion here so far could only have been held because the moderators have kept it on. The moderators can do with our messages whatever they want. It's what you accepted when you joined this forum. If you don't like this forum or this policy, you're free to leave, like many others have done before. Noone will force you to stay here.
To prevent any confusion (or actually cause more), I want to add that I disagree with this filter as well. Anyone who can read knows what was meant with f**k, f*ck and f***. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to crack that code.
that is creative typing to bypass the filters. not allowed here. it disturbs the sjax family. this is an old wound sjax has against me from years ago when i was, seemingly, the only one who would disagree with him. nothing to do with you. auntie id mods as a mother hen, not as a jackbooted nazi who applies his own version of rules on selected few while allowing his buddies to get away with the same thing. this problem can probably only be solved with a ruling from the big guys. i hope my posts today showing how others do what i do but sjax looks the other way will provide some mitigating circumstances. jackbooted nazi mods applying standards to whom and when he wants is not acceptable.

Phreakmeister

December 6th, 2003, 09:28 PM

Bush has had problems with Turkey before...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3294501.stm

sinecure

December 6th, 2003, 10:06 PM

... and to you, that article describes a "problem" Bush had??

:rolleyes:

Y'know? His body doesn't really LOOK like that either... reliable sources tell me that in all photographs of him released by his political "handlers" so far... he's wearing CLOTHES!!

The stretching you guys will do to "get something" [in your mind anyway :rolleyes:] on the Prez...:rolleyes: :lol :lol

w1che

December 7th, 2003, 01:34 AM

Sin you got it right these Bush bashers are getting funny... :lol :lol

DEAD ZONE

December 8th, 2003, 11:15 AM

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df12042003.html

It clearly says that he picked up the platter without prior arrangement. That it was a display and that the president's people did not take the picture. Knowing Bush's playful demeanor he probably picked it up as a sort of joke. There is NO subterfuge in this incident at all.

This is typical, pointless Bush bashing. It is reaching for nothing. In fact there is little substance in the entire sstory!If you want some MEANINGFUL criticism THIS article ain't it!It does show the despiration and imbeded dislike {hate} for Bush however.

A thinking man would provide proof that it was a deliberate deception on the part of the administration or keep his mouth shut.Bush grabbed a table decoration in good humor to take a picture with a soldier. That's all. No conspiracy, no hidden agenda.

Some people need to lighten up.

FLASH HEADLINE FROM DREAMSCRAPIST'S NEWS SERVICE:

BUSH SEEN WALKING ON WATER: PROOF HE CANNOT SWIM!!

Phreakmeister

December 9th, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by weldordave
I seem to recall a Dutch post which stated something along the lines of "stupid Americans can't tell what we are saying"

Can you remember where it was? I said something similar here (http://www.dumblaws.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1442&perpage=15&pagenumber=10). I said:

Als ik nou Nederlands tegen jullie zou gaan praten, zou ik waarschijnlijk van niemand antwoord krijgen. Misschien van Enforcer, als die weer aanlijn weet te komen, maar waarschijnlijk niet van de Amerikanen hier. Sinecure, w1che, Dead Zone, Dizbuster, Idnew, BeetleJuice, Andy, Jeff, weldordave, maar ook aclu en misschien ook wel King Solomon. Nou verwacht ik van de Europeanen ook niet dat ze ook maar enig benul hebben van wat ik hier allemaal schrijf. Mensen als nacho cheese, Mary, kontulib, Serendipity en Sjax zijn volgens mij ook niet zulke talenwonders dat ze begrijpen wat hier staat. Maar ja, dat is dan ook weer het leuke hiervan :lol :lol :lol

Translated:

If I were to talk Dutch against you, I probably wouldn't get a reply from anyone. Perhaps from Enforcer, when he gets online, but probably not from the Americans here. Sinecure, w1che, Dead Zone, Dizbuster, Idnew, BeetleJuice, Andy, Jeff, weldordave, aclu and perhaps King Solomon as well. I don't expect the Europeans to understand what I'm saying here either. I don't think people like nacho cheese, Mary, kontulib, Serendipity and Sjax are that proficient in languages that they understand what I'm saying. But then again, that's the fun part of it all.

Phreakmeister

December 9th, 2003, 02:12 PM

"What is the problem with the turkey Bush was photographed with in Iraq?" some have asked. The answer is very simple. Bush went to Iraq to show the people that he went there fore the troops, in order to support them. This in itself is a bit unlikely. Judging from the media circus, from the photographers who went with Bush on Air Force One, etc., the far more likely picture emerges that this was a publicity stunt, which some of you have accused Hillary Clinton of. The turkey corroborates that view. If Bush didn't intend to share the turkey with the soldiers, why did he have to parade with the turkey the way he did? If this was not to set a certain image (a symbolic image, the most powerful of all images), why did Bush have to hold and show the turkey? Why the focus on form over substance? Why the image-consciousness? This visit should have been about the troops, right? The trip should have been about Bush supporting the troops, not about the troops functioning as stage setting for a White House publicity stunt.

sinecure

December 9th, 2003, 10:05 PM

You missed it again, Phreak... when are you going to just give it up and concede that you don't know as much about America and Americans as you profess?:rolleyes:

GWB is thei commander of those troops. It means a lot for him to give up his Thanksgiving to spend a couple of hours with them. Hillary is a carpetbagging junior Senator from New York, whose statements will undoubtedly embolden the enemy while at the same time tending to dispirit our troops.

The turkey was a prop. GWB picked it up... as he might do a candy cane for Christmas, or a basket of colored eggs for Easter. He undoubtedly didn't want to sit down and eat because he obviously wanted to meet as many of the troops, shake as many hands, and pose for as many GI's photos [i]with the GI's as he could.

The turkey tempest-in-a-teacup that the left-wing press and their running-dogs is trying to brew-up is much ado about nothing. Nobody in the USA has changed their mind about GWB, one way or another, over this wholly manufactured-by-the-critics "turkey problem." Believe me.

It's an American thing. And while I don't expect you to understand, I also don't expect you to feel righteous about enthusiastically criticizing that on which you have no "hook".

DEAD ZONE

December 9th, 2003, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
"What is the problem with the turkey Bush was photographed with in Iraq?" some have asked. The answer is very simple. Bush went to Iraq to show the people that he went there fore the troops, in order to support them. This in itself is a bit unlikely. Judging from the media circus, from the photographers who went with Bush on Air Force One, etc., the far more likely picture emerges that this was a publicity stunt, which some of you have accused Hillary Clinton of. The turkey corroborates that view. If Bush didn't intend to share the turkey with the soldiers, why did he have to parade with the turkey the way he did? If this was not to set a certain image (a symbolic image, the most powerful of all images), why did Bush have to hold and show the turkey? Why the focus on form over substance? Why the image-consciousness? This visit should have been about the troops, right? The trip should have been about Bush supporting the troops, not about the troops functioning as stage setting for a White House publicity stunt. B.S. The press were the oned pitching the bigest bi.tch about being left out.

Why not hold and show it. We present them the same way everythanksgiving at the family table along with the head of the house carving them. My gosh you leftist are getting desperate.:lol

hillaries party made the trops wait to be served. Bush did some serving. Thats alone makes it clear who did what and why.
go back to page one where the press was posted as gripping about not knowing.

Ateo

December 10th, 2003, 02:28 AM

You'd think a guy who really cared about the troops would...spend time with the troops. Talk to them, get their story. Focus on finding out from them how they feel, how their morale is. Not holding up a friggin turkey and parading it for the flashing cameras. That's crass, cheap. You'd think if he knew his time was that limited he would spend his time more substantively.

I know this is really going to piss some of you off, but honestly, I can't imagine Clinton in the same situation holding up a turkey. He may have had his faults, but he had more class than that.

sinecure

December 10th, 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
You'd think a guy who really cared about the troops would...spend time with the troops. Talk to them, get their story. Focus on finding out from them how they feel, how their morale is. Not holding up a friggin turkey and parading it for the flashing cameras. That's crass, cheap. You'd think if he knew his time was that limited he would spend his time more substantively.

I know this is really going to piss some of you off, but honestly, I can't imagine Clinton in the same situation holding up a turkey. He may have had his faults, but he had more class than that.

I guess they didn't show the whole video on whatever liberal TV station you watch, Tig. GWB spent a LOT of time walking around amongst the troops that were there, and it appeared that he shook a lot of hands and posed with the GI's for their personal photos. No, he didn't have time to sit with one or two GI's and ask them a bunch of questions, show photos of the girlfriends back home etc... But--

This probably won't get even partway through to you, Tig.... but at least I tried--

Here is a personal, eyewitness account, by an Army Captain, of our Commander in Chief's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad. This account never made it into our newspapers.

GySgt John Perry, stationed at Quantico, sent this.

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:43 AM
To: TRNG COM OCS Officers; TRNG COM OCS SNCOs; TRNG COM OCS Enlisted
Subject: President in Iraq -- Eyewitness Account

An Email from a Captain in Iraq

We knew there was a dinner planned with ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. There were 600 seats available and all the units in the division were tasked with filling a few tables. Naturally, the 501st MI battalion got our table. Soldiers were grumbling about having to sit through another dog-and-pony show, so we had to pick soldiers to attend. I chose not to go.

But, about 1500 the G2, LTC Devan, came up to me and with a smile, asked me to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and bring a camera. I didn't really care about getting a picture with Sanchez or Bremer, but when the division's senior intelligence officer asks you to go, you go. We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated for thanksgiving when aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed up.

That was my first clue, because Bremer's been here before and his personal security detachment is not that big. Then BG Dempsey got up to speak, and he welcomed ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. Bremer thanked us all and pulled out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He mentioned that the President had given him this thanksgiving speech to give to the troops. He then paused and said that the senior man present should be the one to give it. He then looked at Sanchez, who just smiled.

Bremer then said that we should probably get someone more senior to read the speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering. Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than thirty feet away from me! The cheering went on and on and on.

Soldiers were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There was not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I could clearly see tears running down his cheeks. It was the most surreal moment I've had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born. Here was this man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17 hours on an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world, where a plane was shot out of the sky not six days before.

Just to spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and spend another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will never forget it. He delivered his speech, which we all loved, when he looked right at me and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was just mobbed by the soldiers. He slowly worked his way all the way around the chow hall and shook every last hand extended. Every soldier who wanted a photo with the President got one. I made my way through the line, got dinner, then wolfed it down as he was still working the room.

You could tell he was really enjoying himself. It wasn't just a photo opportunity. This man was actually enjoying himself! He worked his way over the course of about 90 minutes towards my side of the room. Meanwhile, I took the opportunity to shake a few hands. I got a picture with Ambassador Bremer, Talabani (acting Iraqi president) and Achmed Chalabi (another member of the ruling council) and Condaleeza Rice, who was there with him.

I felt like I was drunk. He was getting closer to my table so I went back over to my seat. As he passed and posed for photos, he looked my in the eye and "How you doin', captain." I smiled and said "God bless you, sir." To which he responded "I'm proud of what you do, captain." Then moved on.

>edit snip of other stuff/other subjects<
END

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Too bad he didn't mention the turkey.
:rolleyes:

Ateo

December 10th, 2003, 03:47 AM

In the interests of equal time here's an opposing viewpoint (http://estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=19144) (scroll down to "Thanksgiving Visit").So the boss came to visit us on Thanksgiving, under wraps and under the American flag. Thanks for coming. Oh thank you, kind leader, merciful leader, for taking one day out of your busy schedule to visit us. The shepherd looking over his flock. Thanks for making the sacrifice. God knows we’re making one. Re-election is coming up, but that had nothing to do with it, now did it?

I remember your victorious landing on the ship. Oh how all those then alive, and now dead, would love to sit down next to you, cutting their families’ turkeys and filling the empty seats at the tables. Leader of the free world, be our guest at the head of our table. Or would you like to sit in one of the many empty seats left by the war? There’s plenty of room. Enough turkey and stuffing to go around. Fat and happy, delirious and exhausted. That’s how I feel.

In a hurry? Going so soon? Have time for questions? You sure do have time for compliments. Do you ever feel responsible? I’m tired of this. Go back home to the ranch and tell them how happy and fulfilling the trip made you feel.

Spc. Damian Torres
Iraq

sinecure

December 10th, 2003, 04:03 AM

Now, THAT's an "unmotivated" soldier. Probably pulling KP when Bush arrived! [Actually, I'm informed that the GI's no longer are required to do "Kitchen Police" duties... what a bunch of wusses!:lol ]

Anyway, you can always find a malcontent GI. This one apparently didn't get to go to see the Prez with the rest of the troops. :rolleyes:

He's also pretty stupid to sign his name and rank... leading me to suspect a Stars and Stripes troll.:question

Ateo

December 10th, 2003, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by sinecure
Anyway, you can always find a malcontent GI. This one apparently didn't get to go to see the Prez with the rest of the troops. :rolleyes: Yep, kinda like the actual American citizens who disagree with the Bush admins' policy. The ones who are always cordoned off whenever Bush appears to speak. The ones who might distract our great leader's train of thought, and cause him to digress from his carefully prepared script. :)

AWPrime

December 10th, 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by sinecure

It's an American thing. And while I don't expect you to understand.

Probally not, I think the closest thing we have is Sinterklaas.

But it would have been nice if Bush had given the troops something extra nice to eat and staid for a while, instead of parading a porp in front of their nozes.

sinecure

December 10th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Tig... The "thought content" of your posts has been steadily depleted of late. I suppose it could be that there just isn't any good response at your fingertips, so you come up with these childish, petulant pieces of crap.... Somehow, I expected better of you.:wink

AW... GWB didn't go to Iraq as a representative of "Meals On Wheels"... [an American reference-- it's an organization that brings hot meals to people who are sick, elderly, or who are otherwise unable to take care of themselves.] He went there during a traditional American time of being with "family" to show confidence in the troops and to thank them for their efforts. He became part of their "family."

Ateo

December 10th, 2003, 06:30 PM

Ok, that response did suck. It was off point.

There are a lot of GI's who aren't just "malcontents", but who genuinely dislike Bush. I know you think it's just a handful Sin, but I have a feeling Bush may be the most vehemently despised wartime president in history (by the troops).

Do you really think they'd let any "malcontent" GI's in to see Bush on Thanksgiving? Maybe that's why you get such a skewed vision of Bush's loveability--because it's choreographed that way (and thus my previous off-point post becomes somewhat relevent).

sinecure

December 10th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort
There are a lot of GI's who aren't just "malcontents", but who genuinely dislike Bush. I know you think it's just a handful Sin, but I have a feeling Bush may be the most vehemently despised wartime president in history (by the troops).

I don't know what kinds of connections you may have with the military, Tig, but I'm still in contact with several active duty "lifers" as well as a few kids of various frends of mine who are both enlisted and officer corps. While that certainly doesan't mean that I have my fingers on every hot pulse of the American Military Fighting Man [and Woman :rolleyes: ], I think I have a fairly good general idea of what the average GI is feeling towards GWB as compared to his recent predecessors... and I can say that you are completely wrong. I cussed LBJ when that SOB was telling everybody that "We have none of our boys in Cambodia or Laos.." Talk about your Prez lying to the American people!! From the Gulf of Tonkin incident onward. Nixon was both good and bad, and at least he tried to structure "Peace with Honor" but had to settle for simply getting us the-hell-out of VN. Ford was a buffoon, Carter shoulda stayed on his nuclear sub... his handling of the Iran/hostage thing was horrible. Regan was both good and bad... he built-up the military, outspending the Russkies until they went hooves-to-the-moon, Grenada was nuthin' but a training exercise. Bush One didn't have the backbone to finish Saddam and then withstand the cries of the indignant Home Lefties... he [quite wrongly, as it turned out] figured that he could rely on the UN with all their inspectors and Peackeepers to handle Iraq. Clinton couldn't be bothered with REAL foreign policy... e.g. Somalia, Af'stan, USS Cole, Kohbal Towers, etc. etc... he was too busy "wagging the dog" back home.

No, Tig... I think you are definitely wrong in your assumption.

Do you really think they'd let any "malcontent" GI's in to see Bush on Thanksgiving?

Well, no, of course not.... which is why I labelled him so. Now... do you suppose he was upset because he didn't get to see GWB? ...Or because he was a Reservist who was getting lots of bennies back home and suddenly got called to active duty and whined. Possibly somebody noted his protestations and reminded him to read the fine print in his Reserve enlistment papers! :p

You guys don't have to sweat the Draft anymore... all-volunteer these days... which is why they get paid more and have it so much better that we of the VN era did. We all make choices in life... I suggest you make them carefully . :wink

Maybe that's why you get such a skewed vision of Bush's loveability--because it's choreographed that way (and thus my previous off-point post becomes somewhat relevent).

Naaah, Tig... I've been aware of the "choreographing" since McArthur waded ashore four or five times for the photogs in the Phillippines!

I've been aware of inflated bodycounts, irrational cheerleading and all sorts of other manipulation attempts. I simply take it for what it is... the way the world works. YMMV. :sleep

w1che

December 11th, 2003, 12:28 AM

I think we will all find out how much Bush is despised in Nov. of 04 won't we Tigger.. I have a strong feeling it's not as many people as you think..Of course the polls could all be wrong.. Just wait until Bush starts his push for reelection & he will answer some of the crap the Dems have free rein to spew now.. We shall see...

DEAD ZONE

December 11th, 2003, 01:29 AM

DustyBottoms

December 12th, 2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by sinecure

YMMV. :sleep [/B]

I give up - " You make me vote"?

sinecure

December 12th, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by DustyBottoms

I give up - " You make me vote"?

It's one of the hoariest of internet acronyms-- YMMV= "Your Mileage May Vary."

See:

http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/acronyms.html

and:

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

DustyBottoms

December 12th, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by sinecure

It's one of the hoariest of internet acronyms-- YMMV= "Your Mileage May Vary."

See:

http://www.magicpub.com/netprimer/acronyms.html

and:

http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/

Thanks! Somehow I am relieved! WYLABOCTGWTR :lol

Ateo

December 12th, 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by DEAD ZONE
the turkey shot took how long? It was a short spirt tig. He cant hang around in the area to long ,it is a WAR ZONE.
But the precious time he did have, he spent a nice part of it posing for the flashing cameras with a decorative turkey on a platter, as if to say "I am here as a humble lunchlady/commander in chief". When in actuality we know he was there to spike his flagging approval numbers. :rolleyes:

Again--Clinton just wasn't a turkey-holdin' guy. He also wasn't a "mission-accomplished-banner-in-the-background-wearing-a-flightsuit" guy. He had faults, but he wasn't the media whore Bush is. Face it.

sinecure

December 12th, 2003, 05:26 AM

Clinton never passed up a photo-op and YOU know it, Tig...

Here's just one of his all-time phoney set-ups--Rearranging the rocks he "just happened to find" on Normandy beach into the form of a cross... with the warship on the horizon.... then doing his famous lip-biting act... :rolleyes:

Oh, come ON now!!

No... the fact [fact!] that GWB has more ability and opportunity to demonstrate real leadership really has your tighty-whities in a knot, huh, Tig? :lol :lol

AWPrime

December 12th, 2003, 07:12 AM

That makes me want to ask you 'how do you define leadership'.

w1che

December 12th, 2003, 10:34 AM

Quote from AW... That makes me want to ask you 'how do you define leadership'
>>>>>>>>>>

You AW... You would make a good leader... :lol

sinecure

December 12th, 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
That makes me want to ask you 'how do you define leadership'.

Oh.... how insensitive of me... :o That's right... you come from a leadership-challenged part of the world, don't you.

The rest of us can easily think of several good/great leaders.:smash :p

DEAD ZONE

December 12th, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort

But the precious time he did have, he spent a nice part of it posing for the flashing cameras with a decorative turkey on a platter, as if to say "I am here as a humble lunchlady/commander in chief". When in actuality we know he was there to spike his flagging approval numbers. :rolleyes:

Again--Clinton just wasn't a turkey-holdin' guy. He also wasn't a "mission-accomplished-banner-in-the-background-wearing-a-flightsuit" guy. He had faults, but he wasn't the media whore Bush is. Face it. Get off it tig. That photo time was what, a couple of minute’s tops?? Next you will complain because he took to long to take a dump.:rolleyes:

H served some longer than that photo shot.

Clinton was a ham and like to have things of his held..........He is the poster child for photo ops. Remember the d-day ceremony? They actually brought in rocks so he could be filmed supposedly forming them into that emotional message.

He makes bush look like an armature at the photo op.:lol :clap

DEAD ZONE

December 13th, 2003, 12:51 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/thanksgiving.asp

An army captain in Iraq describes President Bush's surprise Thanksgiving Day visit to Baghdad.

Ateo

December 13th, 2003, 03:51 PM

From the Stars & Stripes (http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104&article=18336&archive=true):For security reasons, only those pre-selected got into the facility during Bush’s visit.
Just curious...if there are active military personnel that consititute a security risk...why are they allowed to remain in the military?

What was the screening process really about, I wonder? Hmmm. Hmmm. :rolleyes:

DustyBottoms

December 13th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort
From the Stars & Stripes (http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104&article=18336&archive=true):
Just curious...if there are active military personnel that consititute a security risk...why are they allowed to remain in the military?

What was the screening process really about, I wonder? Hmmm. Hmmm. :rolleyes:

Easy - Bush is so well liked that he would have been mobbed with adoration so they needed to protect him from his loving fans.

Do you remember when the Beetles toured the USA? :)

sinecure

December 13th, 2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort
From the Stars & Stripes (http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104&article=18336&archive=true):
Just curious...if there are active military personnel that consititute a security risk...why are they allowed to remain in the military?

What was the screening process really about, I wonder? Hmmm. Hmmm. :rolleyes:

Some more grist for your mill.... everybody...everybody was checked for weapons before being allowed into the tent. Even the General Officers had empty holsters.

Of course, you'd think it was because they feared assissination from a GI...huh, Tig?

No, it's the same reason guards and cops aren't allowed to take their guns inside a prison... think about it. :wink

Ateo

December 13th, 2003, 05:19 PM

For security reasons, only those pre-selected got into the facility during Bush’s visit.
"Pre-selected" would imply that certain people were chosen over others. What was the criteria? If it was just about weapons, they would have simply checked them at the door.

weldordave

December 14th, 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by tigsnort
From the Stars & Stripes (http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104&article=18336&archive=true):
Just curious...if there are active military personnel that consititute a security risk...why are they allowed to remain in the military?

What was the screening process really about, I wonder? Hmmm. Hmmm. :rolleyes:
DUH. Cause if they were not allowed in or kicked out you lib and aclu type would clog up the legal courts forever.
It's no wonder you are naive about the screening process. You have not been there. You cannot even BEGIN to understand. Live under the umbrella (bumbershoot) of protection and close the gaping hole between your nose and chin.
sjackbootxpoliticalcorrectnessspokenhere.

AWPrime

December 15th, 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by sinecure

No, it's the same reason guards and cops aren't allowed to take their guns inside a prison... think about it. :wink

You're right ......Bush with a gun....scary.

sinecure

December 15th, 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime

You're right ......Bush with a gun....scary.

Yeah, we'd better just let him keep the nuclear launch codes and that garage-door-opener-sized thingie that would put the entire US military on immediate highest alert.... and then command the air-and sea-launched cruise missles to fire.

Couldn't trust him with an Army-issue Beretta, huh? :rolleyes: :p

w1che

December 15th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Tig did you hear the story about the Arab that was in the U.S. military that rolled a grenade in a tent killing some people.. Guess not?? You Libs must feel like you can beat Cheney in 2004 & can't beat Bush.. Getting Bush wacked...is that what all this childish crap is about?...

DustyBottoms

December 15th, 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by tigsnort

"Pre-selected" would imply that certain people were chosen over others. What was the criteria? If it was just about weapons, they would have simply checked them at the door.

I would venture to assume you would not have been selected.:lol :lol

Even our judicial system uses preselected jurors. There is actually a rather long process involved. :wink

Ateo

December 15th, 2003, 04:51 PM

Hm, which was it? A long screening process, or a gun check?

Does anybody here really know what this particular screening process was all about? :)

w1che

December 15th, 2003, 05:08 PM

Quote from Tig... Hm, which was it? A long screening process, or a gun check?
>>>>>>>>

I don't know... You brought it up which was it? It couldn't have been a very LONG screening process if you read the article.. I have a feeling each company was told to pick so many people to come at that time because otherwise everyone would have come at once.. Don't you Tigger?? You got so much room for people, You know...

Phreakmeister

December 21st, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by sinecure
when are you going to just give it up and concede that you don't know as much about America and Americans as you profess?:rolleyes:

As the Dutch say: when Easter and Pentecoast are on the same day :wink

GWB is thei commander of those troops. It means a lot for him to give up his Thanksgiving to spend a couple of hours with them.

I'm sure it means a lot to them, although I don't think it will change much for the situation they're in. And I have no problem with Dubya going to Baghdad. In my first post here I have even called his trip "extremely courageous." My problem is with the enormous media consciousness of not just this administration, but of American politics in general. I don't think you have seen Bush just before his speech announcing the start of the war on Iraq. It was live on tv all across Europe (the cameras had started rolling a little too early) how a barber cut and styled his hair, to make it look perfect on tv. I'm sure some of our European friends have seen it as well. Or let's take the landing of George Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln (you don't think they chose a ship with that name by coincidence, do you?), announcing the end of the war. That flag saying "Mission Accomplished" didn't hang there by accident. The troops weren't standing where they were standing by chance. Another example: when presidents hold speeches inside the White House, wherever it is, you always see the Stars and Stripes in the left or right hand side of the screen. Examine portraits and footage of American politicians, from whatever party, and you'll see how carefully constructed the images are, how every spontaneity has been carefully driven out of the scene. My problem is not with Bush going to Baghdad. My problem is with the immense media consciousness that has become manifest in American politics, the culture of image-over-substance that shows itself in just about any situation. The trip to Baghdad was just one of the situations.

It's an American thing. And while I don't expect you to understand, I also don't expect you to feel righteous about enthusiastically criticizing that on which you have no "hook".

Perhaps it's because you don't see much from abroad (the rest of the world hardly gets any attention in the US), but I'm sincerely shocked to see you are unable to see through the media culture of American politics.

sinecure

December 22nd, 2003, 03:08 AM

Thanks for demoinstrating your vast ignorance of most things American once again. :rolleyes:

Where to start??

Bush's trip wasn't to "change the situation [the troops] were in." but to offer support and a show of HIS confidence. He wasn't there to fill-in for a sick soldier on a 6-man patrol!

So... American politicians try to look their best before addressing the world?? WOW!! what a scoop! STOP THE PRESSES!!:rolleyes: If he hadn't been looking his best you and your running-dogs would've criticized him for being disrespectful and ratty-looking.

Go through the names of the United States' carriers/battleships. You'll find a lot of them with patriotic-sounding names. What are the names of some of your Dutch carriers?? :lol :lol

Along with some other basics, I don't think you understand what a military "mission" is... [as in "Mission Accomplished"] Look it up. The fall of Saddam's regime was a "mission". Pilots fly "missions". "Mission Accomplished" doesn't mean the war was over and won.

Do you have any idea why those sailors behind GWB were in different colored shirts? Would you rather have GWB talking from the cockpit seat of the jet he flew in on? ...Or up against a battleship-gray wall? Foolish, nit-picking criticisms from a foolish picker of nits!!:rolleyes:

Did you know that the USA has a codified Flag Etiquette? It covers, among other things, how and when the Flag is to be displayed... alone and with other flags.

Why shouldn't the images of our politicians be "carefully constructed"? I suppose you show your Dutch pols on the toilet, just out of bed, or show them scratching wherever it itches?

You truly don't know much about the US, Phreak... undoubtedly you know more than most Euros, but at least most of THEM have the ultimate good sense not to criticize what they KNOW they don't understand. It is obvious that YOU aren't similarly self-restrained. :smash

AWPrime

December 22nd, 2003, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by sinecure
Along with some other basics, I don't think you understand what a military "mission" is... [as in "Mission Accomplished"] Look it up. The fall of Saddam's regime was a "mission". Pilots fly "missions". "Mission Accomplished" doesn't mean the war was over and won.
You and your other Bush supporters didn't seem to think so at first: 'We won the war'

Why shouldn't the images of our politicians be "carefully constructed"? I suppose you show your Dutch pols on the toilet, just out of bed, or show them scratching wherever it itches?
We aren't so hype or so sensational oriented here. And speeches here are normally done in a normal way (without BS symbols and words)

sinecure

December 22nd, 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

You and your other Bush supporters didn't seem to think so at first: 'We won the war'

Not true... find a place where I said "we won the war"... I'm smarter than that... you apparently aren't..

We aren't so hype or so sensational oriented here. And speeches here are normally done in a normal way (without BS symbols and words)

Ah yes... you ARE rather dull, melancholy people, aren't you? :smash :p

:lol :lol

AWPrime

December 22nd, 2003, 04:59 PM

We call that realisme.

sinecure

December 22nd, 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
We call that realisme.

...so do we... you guys are REAL dull and melancholy folks... :lol :lol :smash:

...with the exception of the late Victor Borge... he was a treasure!

Phreakmeister

December 23rd, 2003, 02:35 PM

Where to start...

Originally posted by sinecure
Bush's trip wasn't to "change the situation [the troops] were in." but to offer support and a show of HIS confidence. He wasn't there to fill-in for a sick soldier on a 6-man patrol!

Nor have I said it was.

Go through the names of the United States' carriers/battleships. You'll find a lot of them with patriotic-sounding names.

And you think that they chose the USS Lincoln for nothing?

Along with some other basics, I don't think you understand what a military "mission" is... [as in "Mission Accomplished"] Look it up. The fall of Saddam's regime was a "mission". Pilots fly "missions". "Mission Accomplished" doesn't mean the war was over and won.

It may have gone over your head (apparently it has), sin, but I wasn't talking about the words on the flag/banner, or how it relates to reality. I referred to it as being part of a constructed image presented to the world. The flag was hung there like the background of a Hollywood movie. And that is the pointe of what I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you have any idea why those sailors behind GWB were in different colored shirts? Would you rather have GWB talking from the cockpit seat of the jet he flew in on? ...Or up against a battleship-gray wall? Foolish, nit-picking criticisms from a foolish picker of nits!!:rolleyes:

No, sin, it has again gone over your head. But what's new in that? My problem with not with the outfit of the sailors, or the fact that they were standing there. It is the way in which the soldiers were put there.

Did you know that the USA has a codified Flag Etiquette? It covers, among other things, how and when the Flag is to be displayed... alone and with other flags.

I know that. We have exactly the same, in case you didn't know. What I was/am talking about is for instance this (http://www.floridatoday.com/news/verge/images/2001/sep/0916attack9.jpg), the way the flags of the US and the president are placed to convey an image of authority. I hope you agree with me that the image should never become more important than the message.

Why shouldn't the images of our politicians be "carefully constructed"? I suppose you show your Dutch pols on the toilet, just out of bed, or show them scratching wherever it itches?

No, we treat them as normal people, with normal lives, with real scenes in real circumstances.

Ah yes... you ARE rather dull, melancholy people, aren't you?

No. We may live in a monarchy, but over here our politicians are at least normal people, they are at least our politicians, for what it's worth.

Best example is this, of then formateur, now Secretary of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, after visiting the queen:
http://www.fietsen.123.nl/images/donner2.jpg

sinecure

December 23rd, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
Nor have I said it was.
According to what I read you did... what did you intend to say when you wrote: "I'm sure it means a lot to them, although I don't think it will change much for the situation they're in. "??

And you think that they chose the USS Lincoln for nothing?

Well... it was the only coming-home carrier in the area, and it was named many years before... what a foolish and ignorant criticism.... even for you!

It may have gone over your head (apparently it has), sin, but I wasn't talking about the words on the flag/banner, or how it relates to reality. I referred to it as being part of a constructed image presented to the world. The flag was hung there like the background of a Hollywood movie. And that is the pointe of what I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, the function of a banner is to communicate an idea, Phreak. The banner did that. You thought the banner was "theatrical"?? That, too was its function. I don't think you could have come up with a criticism that would have been "less" than that!

No, sin, it has again gone over your head. But what's new in that? My problem with not with the outfit of the sailors, or the fact that they were standing there. It is the way in which the soldiers were put there.

Well...it's called "organization" Phreak... and our military is fairly famous for it... they stand in lines and rows, somebody is always telling them where to go.. etc. etc. It makes for efficiency. Shows respect. What YOU see as "staged" was nothing more than a common and customary US military activity. I suppose you'd want to see a mob scene around GWB while he was giving his speech? ...and then they could all break out into a verse or two of "Kum-ba-Ya"?? :rolleyes:

I know that. We have exactly the same, in case you didn't know. What I was/am talking about is for instance this (http://www.floridatoday.com/news/verge/images/2001/sep/0916attack9.jpg), the way the flags of the US and the president are placed to convey an image of authority. I hope you agree with me that the image should never become more important than the message.

Well... doesn't YOUR leader do anything to convey the image of "authority"? Ours does, because he IS "in authority." We like to see the flag with our Pewsident. More nits from a would-be critic grasping at straws. :rolleyes:

No, we treat them as normal people, with normal lives, with real scenes in real circumstances.

No. We may live in a monarchy, but over here our politicians are at least normal people, they are at least our politicians, for what it's worth.

Well, good for you. I suppose if the US was as far down the world's organizational chart as YOU folks are, well, WE'D be pretty laid-back as well. I mean the guy in the mailroom doesn't "dress for success".. the CEO generally does. :p

Best example is this, of then formateur, now Secretary of Justice, Piet Hein Donner, after visiting the queen:

That's him on a bicycle? a cartoon ...pitiful... Not even worthy of a PTA [Parent-Teacher Association] or Girl Scouts secretary-treasurer...certainly not a functionary of a modern significant country.

...but then, that may answer my entire arguement right there! :p :p :lol :wave

You, as a natipon, had your day in the sun, and the sun has set. Now it's our time.. and it isn't even "High Noon" [a Gary Cooper movie reference] yet!

Phreakmeister

December 23rd, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by sinecure
According to what I read you did... what did you intend to say when you wrote: "I'm sure it means a lot to them, although I don't think it will change much for the situation they're in. "??

As I said it. I am sure that Bush's visit to Baghdad meant a lot to the troops. As you put it, he intended "to offer support and a show of HIS confidence." I am sure that he showed it to the troops, and the troops perceived it that way. At the same time, the visit of Bush doesn't change the situation the troops are in. They are faced with (the threat of) attacks every day. So the visit of Bush may have made them feel good, it didn't make the situation they are in good. I know that changing the situation wasn't the intent of the trip, but you will probably agree with me that the troops out there need tangible results. And that wasn't brought by the visit of Bush. That can only be brought by the policies of Bremer c.s.

Well... it was the only coming-home carrier in the area, and it was named many years before... what a foolish and ignorant criticism.... even for you!

Do you seriously think I think it was named especially for that occassion? That is a ludicrous load of bovine crap.

Well, the function of a banner is to communicate an idea, Phreak. The banner did that. You thought the banner was "theatrical"?? That, too was its function. I don't think you could have come up with a criticism that would have been "less" than that!

You are funny, sin. When I say something, you claim I said something I didn't say, and then you "attack" me for saying what you believe I said, even though it's obvious I never said anything like it. Here you do the same. What I said was this: the use of the flag is but one example of the enormous preparation for any public moment of George W. Bush. And when that preparation concerns his personal safety, that's perfect, but this has nothing to do with his safety. The flag is a trivial piece of decor, the only intent of which is to bolster Bush's reelection campaign. And that, my dear friend, is a grave insult of the crew of the USS Lincoln.

Well...it's called "organization" Phreak... and our military is fairly famous for it... they stand in lines and rows, somebody is always telling them where to go.. etc. etc. It makes for efficiency. Shows respect. What YOU see as "staged" was nothing more than a common and customary US military activity. I suppose you'd want to see a mob scene around GWB while he was giving his speech? ...and then they could all break out into a verse or two of "Kum-ba-Ya"?? :rolleyes:

:lol

I said you were funny in my previous reply to your misstatements, and I'll say it again. It's funny to see you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about or what is going on, but in a sad way it's even funnier to see you can't even realize it.
In case you don't know, sin: I know from personal experience what standing in the ranks is and what it's like. In case you don't realize it, my problem is not with the ranks themselves, it's with the way they have been positioned for the camera. But that's not even the reason why I mentioned it. I mentioned it as an illustration to my main point: the power of image in American politics.

Well... doesn't YOUR leader do anything to convey the image of "authority"?

No, because he doesn't have any authority :lol

We like to see the flag with our Pewsident. More nits from a would-be critic grasping at straws. :rolleyes:

1. And with we you mean all 290+ million Americans?

2. I am not talking about what you as a people want, I am talking about what they, the politicians, do.

That's him on a bicycle? a cartoon ...pitiful... Not even worthy of a PTA [Parent-Teacher Association] or Girl Scouts secretary-treasurer...certainly not a functionary of a modern significant country.

:lol

You may have lost your wits, sin, but you haven't lost your sense of humour.

You, as a natipon, had your day in the sun, and the sun has set. Now it's our time.. and it isn't even "High Noon" [a Gary Cooper movie reference] yet!

Some might disagree with that.

sinecure

December 23rd, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Phreakmeister
...I know that changing the situation wasn't the intent of the trip, but you will probably agree with me that the troops out there need tangible results. And that wasn't brought by the visit of Bush. That can only be brought by the policies of Bremer c.s.

Well.... I'm certain that he didn't expect his visit to the troops to cure cancer, the common cold, the terrorist problem, or solve the world's population difficulties... YOU, dear idiot, don't seem to be able to grasp what I'M saying... Your criticism that "he didn't help the situation of the troops with his visit" is a non-sequitur. Like saying that my SUV might be a comfortable car to ride in, but it can't float for long when driven into water, or fly very well when driven off a cliff. There was no other rational way to interpret your original statement.:rolleyes:

Do you seriously think I think it was named especially for that occassion? That is a ludicrous load of bovine crap.

Well then , I seriously don't know what the hell kind of "point" you intended to make about the ship's name.
1. It was named a long time ago.
2. It was the only carrier returning from its Middle Eastern station at that time, and close enough for GWB's flight.

What is the central issue to your complaint about the name of the carrier? ...or is it just your knickers are still in a twist over his landing on the carrier and looking very much like like a leader to so many of us? :p

...What I said was this: the use of the flag is but one example of the enormous preparation for any public moment of George W. Bush. And when that preparation concerns his personal safety, that's perfect, but this has nothing to do with his safety. The flag is a trivial piece of decor, the only intent of which is to bolster Bush's reelection campaign. And that, my dear friend, is a grave insult of the crew of the USS Lincoln.

Wrong on all counts you flaming pinko... "Preperation" is routinely done even for visiting Command Grade officers... and is even done for visiting officers from inferrior nations! Those GI's expected to engage in "enormous preparation"

And know THIS you little pencil-necked Socialist geek... The American Flag is not EVER considered "a trivial piece of decor". YOU may do what you will with your flag... Our Flag isn't taken at all lightly by most Americans. Our Prez has every right to proudly stand in front of our Flag when addressing the cameras of the world.... in fact, I'd think having the Flag with him in the background would be a duty he would be proud to carry out when making a public announcement.

What YOU erroneously see as "a grave insult to the crew of the USS Lincoln" is a matter of PRIDE to them. You couldn't have misunderstood it more wrongly. It is likely you will never understand. Your I-pulled-it-out-of-my-wazoo statement is the insult here. :mad

In case you don't know, sin: I know from personal experience what standing in the ranks is and what it's like.

You spent a summer with the Boy Scouts? :rolleyes:

In case you don't realize it, my problem is not with the ranks themselves, it's with the way they have been positioned for the camera. But that's not even the reason why I mentioned it. I mentioned it as an illustration to my main point: the power of image in American politics.

So you cue-up the music and start tap dancing, huh, Phreak? Here we go again.

Tell me ... just how many different ways are there to "position [the ranks] for the camera" Ranks are rows of people. I didn't recall any particular "positioning" except for the usual "front rows crouch down" which is common to allow everybody a view of the procedings. You may have experienced that in the Boy Scouts. :p

If you can describe a specific complaint in "the positioning of the ranks" onboard the Lincoln, I'll try to address it... otherwise, you make no sense, as usual.

No, because he doesn't have any authority :lol

Then he is not a leader, is he?

1. And with we you mean all 290+ million Americans?

2. I am not talking about what you as a people want, I am talking about what they, the politicians, do.

Of course I don't speak for ALL Americans. We have a few who just don't "get it" yet... aclu immediately comes to mind... although she is apparently quite young-- only a "proto-American" :lol ]

Well... it looks as though the politicians are giving we Americans exactly the kind of dog-and-pony show most of us want. What's wrong with that, not dour and melancholy enough for you? Too bad.:wave :wave :clap