President Bush's trip to Iraq

[Stelliform]

I the spirit of keeping political discussions out of Current events, I have created this thread to encourage discussion on President Bush's trip too Iraq.

(The thread on this in Current Events had some stuff that really belonged here....)

I personally think it is pretty cool that he went to the trouble for the sneak visit. And I am amazed that the press kept their mouths shut until after!

[Stelliform]

....

[groovebuster]

Or maybe a few thousand...

The majority of the Iragi people sees the USA as an occupying power and not as liberators. Also if you repeat it 5 million times it won't change.

Funny situation, when the liberated person actually feels not liberated, but occupied...

groovebuster

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
you have to agree that since the government is gone the US has to stay until the Iraqi people can govern and protect themselves.

i agree that to leave iraq the way it is is a bad idea. but that doesn't mean the US has to be the force that stays.

i would support and handover of power to the UN. i have to wonder if there's a large number of iraqis who silently support the attacks on the US troops, who would frown upon such attacks on a truly international force.

[huntsman]

I got that fuzzy feeling in my stomach when I saw it but I took that as a warning. It was an emotionally potent, calculated event that may temporarily boost troop morale (with no effect on the reality on the ground) but was intended primarily to help boost his stature at home. You have to give credit to the person who thought it up--if the posts here are any indication, not to mention the virtual euphoria in more conservative forums I visit--it worked brilliantly.

Putting on my speculative hat, it may be that it's not just politically self-serving, but personally as well. Following on from the aircraft carrier stunt earlier this year, it seems as though the President has some emotional need show off his "support" for the troops. He sees these acts as some sort of penance stemming from guilt about his own dubious military record.

But my speculation is just self-indulgent. This event is all really just a case of the sideshow taking centre stage. The real story is what's happening on the ground every day in Iraq, not a fleeting, surprise visit by the President. A BBC programme that was aired here last week, in which a reporter tagged along with American troops during the summer, showed that they were desperate for the direction and support they weren't getting to restore law and order and essential services. Iraqis who were not seeing these things being done, but living with the rampant crime while being shot at and having their homes raided by American troops, were becoming more resistant to the occupation.

The programme also showed the disconnect between those at the top, Bremer et al, and the daily reality for American troops and Iraqis. Just how is Mr Bush, being cheered by momentarily euphoric troops and creating a distraction at home, helping himself understand the situation on the ground to give them appropriate direction and support?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
And I am amazed that the press kept their mouths shut until after!

so am i.

it's giving me somewhat of a chilled feeling though. i cannot remember another event where the press was informed beforehand and told it had the power to prevent the actual event.

this is a bizarre form of WH control over the press that had never even occurred to me. i haven't gotten my head around it yet.

my gut says there's something deeply wrong with it. i'm thinking Heisenberg would agree.

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
So there could have been a bit of self preservation in the press's motives. :)

yeah, that's even more messed up. threaten the press or put reporters in danger in order to control news flow? that's sick.

of course, it's painted in such a way that it's cutsie and palatable to the public. i still have a very uneasy feeling about all this.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
i still have a very uneasy feeling about all this.

It might have to do with the underlying phonieness of the whole thing. If I thought Bush did this for the troops it would be one thing, but I think he did this for himself for another photo-op. And if it came from a President who actually supported the veterans I would feel differently as well. It was a nice gesture to the troops, but somehow I don't think the troops were the targeted benficiary of the trip. And now that he has gone, they still have the same situation on the ground to deal with...

A better present would have been an increase in vets benefits, or announcement of an international force structure that would allow the troops to come home.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mactastic
It might have to do with the underlying phonieness of the whole thing. If I thought Bush did this for the troops it would be one thing, but I think he did this for himself for another photo-op. And if it came from a President who actually supported the veterans I would feel differently as well. It was a nice gesture to the troops, but somehow I don't think the troops were the targeted benficiary of the trip. And now that he has gone, they still have the same situation on the ground to deal with...

A better present would have been an increase in vets benefits, or announcement of an international force structure that would allow the troops to come home.

Why assume it is phoney. You do not know what is going threw bush's head. Another photo op. Everything for the president is a photo op. If you dont like him it is a photo op only. I think it is both. What is wrong with a photo op anyway. Bush Sr. did it, Reagan did it, and I am sure Clinton did many of them. However I do conceed it would be better to have more international troops. I wonder what country is will to volunteer the lives of their men and women in Iraq. I dont however want international control, not after the US and Britian and the Ausies( to some extent) did all the heavy lifting.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why assume it is phoney. You do not know what is going threw bush's head. Another photo op. Everything for the president is a photo op. If you dont like him it is a photo op only. I think it is both. What is wrong with a photo op anyway. Bush Sr. did it, Reagan did it, and I am sure Clinton did many of them. However I do conceed it would be better to have more international troops. I wonder what country is will to volunteer the lives of their men and women in Iraq. I dont however want international control, not after the US and Britian and the Ausies( to some extent) did all the heavy lifting.

Ok, given the premise that Bush wanted to do something to help the troops out, he chose a method that made sure he was all over the headlines in a flight suit again. Yet he cuts veterans benefits, and waits till the media is harping on him before he improves conditions in military hospitals. I don't call that troop support.

[3rdpath]

when the media reported that bush's " secret mission" was successful i almost laughed so hard i wet myself...secret mission...right.... if that's a secret mission then bob hope has him beat by a mile...

i also find it highly ironic that the man who says " bring 'em on" gets to sneak into and out of town...i remember an adjective we had in school for people who taunted and then hid...wussie.

another photo-op of our dimestore cowboy( and historically AWOL) leader.

how sad.

[pseudobrit]

From Bush:

You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country.

************, ************, ************, a lie and a goddamned lie.

Iraqis react:

"He visited Iraq for the sake of the Americans, not the Iraqis. He didn't come to see how we are doing," Muzher Abd Hanush, 54, said in his barbershop. "To come, say hello and leave — what good does that do?"

"If he takes care of Iraq, he will be welcomed here. If not — whether he's here or in the White House — he is of no use to us," said Fadel Hadi, 59, playing dominoes at a teahouse. "If his visit brings us some good, he will be welcome every day."

Another member of the Governing Council, Mahmoud Othman, said the trip meant little.
_
"We cannot consider Bush's arrival at Baghdad International Airport yesterday a visit to Iraq," he said. "He did not meet with ordinary Iraqis. Bush was only trying to boost the morale of his troops."

During Friday prayers on the Muslim holy day, imams at Shiite and Sunni mosques alike criticized the visit, saying Bush should expend his energy helping Iraq recover from war instead of flying across the world to pose for the cameras.

"Instead of coming here to celebrate Thanksgiving with his troops, Bush should release the innocent people in his prisons and arrest the real terrorists conducting attacks," Skeikh Abdul Hadi al-Daraji said at the Muhsen Mosque in the poor, Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City.

"First Bush said he would liberate Iraq. Now he is occupying it. How long will he stay?" asked the imam at Baghdad's largest Sunni mosque, Abu Hanifa.

While U.S. troops called the trip courageous, some Iraqis saw it as cowardly.

"The way he made the trip shows he's afraid of Iraqis," said Mohammed Kamel, 40, a former soldier who now drives a taxi. "He should be; we're a fierce people."

Alla Abdul Wahab, a 38-year-old windowpane seller, hadn't heard about Clinton's trip, but asked what Bush's visit would ultimately do for Iraqis.

"What good will this visit bring?" he asked. "He came to see the Americans — that's all."


I'm inclined to agree with this chap:

"He came for the sake of the elections," Kheiri said. "He never thought of the Iraqi people. He doesn't care about us. It was a personal visit for his own sake."

[bousozoku]

Are the American people so stupid that they're going to believe that the Coward-in-Chief actually cares about those troops? I think he would care a lot more about them if they were all killed and it came down to fighting in Iraq himself.

I find it hard to believe that anyone but an entranced Bush supporter finds anything good about what's happening there. There is no plan and our troops are dying because of it. They can't go away now but someone smarter has to develop a plan. Is it as simple as providing escorts for transports and putting snipers to work for the U.S.A.?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
It might have to do with the underlying phonieness of the whole thing. If I thought Bush did this for the troops it would be one thing, but I think he did this for himself for another photo-op.

at this point, i'm willing to give bush the benefit of the doubt about the purpose of the trip. i can't fault a commander in chief for visiting serving troops. though w/ any WH, we can certainly expect it to serve a political end.

the weirdness comes from the secrecy. the most secret WH is history pulls off a stunt that celebrates secrecy. the press praises the secrecy, and americans are delighted by it. this should be setting off red flags about the secretive nature of this WH in general.

one should also consider an underlying benefit of the secrecy: security. did this whole secrecy stunt start w/ the realization that it wasn't safe for bush to announce a visit to iraq? what's that say about the security situation there? add to that the fact bush didn't venture anywhere where there were iraqis, and i start to think the whole secrecy gimmick was really to distract from the truth.

finally, the control of the press i'd mentioned earlier still chills me. there did exist knowing members of news organizations who weren't actually aboard Air Force One. w/ what were the news organizations bribed, or threatened w/, to keep silent? should i now be worried that our supposedly Free Press has been bullied into submission? or bought off?

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
at this point, i'm willing to give bush the benefit of the doubt about the purpose of the trip. i can't fault a commander in chief for visiting serving troops. though w/ any WH, we can certainly expect it to serve a political end.

the weirdness comes from the secrecy. the most secret WH is history pulls off a stunt that celebrates secrecy. the press praises the secrecy, and americans are delighted by it. this should be setting off red flags about the secretive nature of this WH in general.

one should also consider an underlying benefit of the secrecy: security. did this whole secrecy stunt start w/ the realization that it wasn't safe for bush to announce a visit to iraq? what's that say about the security situation there? add to that the fact bush didn't venture anywhere where there were iraqis, and i start to think the whole secrecy gimmick was really to distract from the truth.

finally, the control of the press i'd mentioned earlier still chills me. there did exist knowing members of news organizations who weren't actually aboard Air Force One. w/ what were the news organizations bribed, or threatened w/, to keep silent? should i now be worried that our supposedly Free Press has been bullied into submission? or bought off?

This is true that Iraq is not very secure at the moment. I for one am glad it was secret becasue I heard that just the other day a cargo plan had a missle launched at it. Think of it. The Iraqi terrorists know he is coming and launch a missle at it. I know alot of people here hate Bush, but a dead president in Iraq would truely be a tragedy. Not just for Bush but for the office of the presidency as well.

Oh and the secrecy of this white house is probably the same overall as any other white house.

[IJ Reilly]

Not very secure at the moment? How about nine months of moments?

The way this operation was conducted should tell you everything you need to know about the security situation in Iraq.

[SPG]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Oh and the secrecy of this white house is probably the same overall as any other white house.

Absolutely not! Cheney's secret energy taskforce? Stonewalling the 9/11 investigations? Ashcrofts order that any FOIA request be automatically rejected no matter what information is being sought? Unprecedented. Nixon's administration was widely held as the most secretive, but now it's Bush II by far.

[SPG]

Bush's two hours at the airport with 600 troops 20 miles from the nearest Iraqi was definitely a photo op. It was a nice gesture to the troops that are being killed and wounded for his folly, and I hope it has a good effect on their morale, but it's not as good an effect if they were all getting on Air Force One and coming back home instead. I'd cut George aWol Bush a little more slack if he'd been better about supporting the troops throughout this fiasco. How many funerals has he attended? None and unfortunately he's had 400 opportunities so far.

Hillary Clinton spent Thanksgiving in Afghanistan and Friday in Iraq visiting troops from NY. Not just a couple hours in a secure location under secret, but meeting Afghans and Iraqis in the streets. There were also reports that aWol was scared to go and reluctant up to the last minute.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by SPG
Absolutely not! Cheney's secret energy taskforce? Stonewalling the 9/11 investigations? Ashcrofts order that any FOIA request be automatically rejected no matter what information is being sought? Unprecedented. Nixon's administration was widely held as the most secretive, but now it's Bush II by far.

It was a gutsy trip. I will give him that. This guy has shown some balls from from the get-go of 911.

But there is another secret that they are keeping. Although we have only had several hundred casualties in this war, we have several thousands of troop recovering with missing legs, arms, eyes, etc. The media is being told not to dwell on this issue. Due to political bs, the Iraqi wounded are getting better treatment from our medics than our own. Parents here at home are buying their children modern defense gear because our government will not foot-the-bill.

Our employees better quit dickin around with politics, and get the job done. Our troops deserve better than what they are getting.

[Ugg]

It smacks of camp xray in Guantanamo Bay. The only "safe" place for all those supposed enemy combatants is shrouded in secrecy. The only safe place for gw is at Saddam International Airport in Baghdad on a trip shrouded in secrecy. If this was such an important event, why wasn't it trumpeted to the world? It only underlines the fact that Iraq is not a safe place for him or for the troops serving there and it's because of his political goals that it is such an effed up place.

I wonder how many troops wanted to boo him?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
It was a gutsy trip. I will give him that. This guy has shown some balls from from the get-go of 911.

Gutsy, in what way exactly? Was it the arrival under the cover of darkness or the departure before anyone knew he was there?

[pseudobrit]

Gutsy would have been an announced week-long tour.

Gutsy would have been flying to D.C. or New York on 9/11 instead of cowering in a bunker.

He's a proven, certified chicken**** and has been since 'Nam.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't like to get into personality issues because they presume a lot and in the end don't produce much in the way of useful conclusions. But I've brought this up before, so I have to say once again that I believe this president pretty clearly values his own safety over the safety of others. Yes, he is the President, and yes he should be protected more then the rest of us, if for that reason alone. This is a given. But a wartime leader leads by example, and from 9-11 onwards, I just haven't seen this quality in George W. Bush. The stealth visit to Iraq is just another example of attempting to fabricate the image of courageous leadership without the reality and substance of it.

[pseudobrit]

I wonder why he left the "Mission Accomplished" banner at home for this stunt?

[Stelliform]

....

[IJ Reilly]

First of all, I didn't call him "chicken," which is a schoolyard taunt and nothing more. I'm talking about a president who seems to confuse photo-ops with leadership.

Here's a study in contrasts for you. The day following the President's visit, two US senators visited Baghdad. They actually walked the streets and talked with Iraqis, something the President conspicuously did not. Don't for a moment think the Iraqi people didn't pick up on the distinction, even if many Americans haven't.

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
if the Iraqi's feel slighted by the president not visiting them, the news media is to blame for stirring that emotion.

not sure i understand what you mean

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Yeah, but the Iraqi's don't know or care who Hillary Clinton and Jack Reed are. Hell I don't even know who Jack Reed is...

Good grief. I had a suspicion that we'd be headed into this la-la land. The insurgents in Iraq are killing Japanese diplomats. They're killing Italian security agents. They're killing Red Cross workers. They're killing British diplomats. Do you really think they wouldn't like to add two US senators to their hit list?

I also don't understand the rest of your argument. You seem to be suggesting that the President's visit should have been kept a secret from the Iraqi people forever (even assuming it could have been, once it was on CNN...). I can't believe that's what you really meant.

[Stelliform]

....

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform

On a side note... did you know that US bases are considered US soil? So from one point of view, he never left US soil since where he was could be considered a US base. (given the overwhelming US military presence.)

that's certainly not the way the WH and media spun it.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Y

But seriously... The Iraqi's do not follow US politics that closely. To them they most likely were just US visitors. I think all of the distinction being made has been pointed at by the news media. The Iraqi people were not told before, or probably after by the US authorities about Bush's visit. He wasn't visiting them. So if the Iraqi's feel slighted by the president not visiting them, the news media is to blame for stirring that emotion.

I do agree with most of your post with the exception of your first sentence.

When a republican congressman visited Iraq this past summer he met with the provisional concil. The first and most important question they asked was; "Is Bush going to win re-election next year?"
The next question was if he loses will the democrats take the troops out.

The Iraqi people are smart and scared to death. They know that events in Washington D.C. next year might decide if Saddam comes back or not. Many suggest that the present situation in Iraq is worse than under Saddam. The media is making it look that way. Therefore we see limited cooperation from the Iraqi people since they are scared to death that if Bush loses next year the democrats will pull the troops out. I don't think that will happen.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
I don't think the Iraqis even knew that he ever stepped foot in Iraq.


link (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/112803-iraq-reax.html)

[Stelliform]

.....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Most Americans don't vote, and I know alot of the people I know who don't vote don't care either about what politicians have to say.


yeah, i hate that crap, and it's a real problem. some combination of taking our democracy for granted and/or feeling disenfranchised.

it'll be our undoing.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Stelliform
I think the earlier killings were opportunistic killings. Not specific plans for a larger insurgent strategy....

And yes I am saying that the Administration has no intention on telling the Iraqi people that Bush walked on Iraqi soil for 2.5 hours. The visit wasn't for them, and the US administration knows that the news organizations will tell them. They might comment on it, but I seriously doubt that they will hold a news conference for the Iraqi press to tell them that he visited the troops.

Simile tags don't count for much if you continue to repeat the same ludicrous argument. The only way the White House could have kept the visit a secret from the Iraqi people was to keep the press away from the event -- which would have defeated the purpose of the thing. I don't know where you found out about it, but I saw the coverage on CNN, which is precisely where anyone in the world with a TV could have seen it. Your reference to a news conference is puzzling. I can't imagine any relevance.

Some of the attacks are opportunistic, others very clearly are planned to hit certain targets.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Rebel
It was a gutsy trip. I will give him that. This guy has shown some balls from from the get-go of 911.
Buzzing around in Air Force One between undisclosed locations all day on 9/11 while the whole country and much of the world is freaking out and looking for some leadership is hardly ballsy. Sneaking into a heavily fortified base 20 miles from Baghdad for a two hour photo op isn't really that ballsy either. There were also a bunch of reports and comments that Bush didn't really want to go. I hope it lifted the spirits of the troops, but it really showed just how unstable Iraq is right now.

Originally posted by Rebel
But there is another secret that they are keeping. Although we have only had several hundred casualties in this war, we have several thousands of troop recovering with missing legs, arms, eyes, etc. The media is being told not to dwell on this issue.
The outpouring of sympathy and grief in Italy and Spain when they lost even a few soldiers in Iraq was overwhelming. Here in the US after losing more than 400 there is barely a mention.

Originally posted by Rebel
Due to political bs, the Iraqi wounded are getting better treatment from our medics than our own.
That doesn't pass the smell test...seems like BS to me, especially after all the complaints that US medics would refuse to treat Iraqis that hadn't been directly wounded by the squad they were accompanying.

Originally posted by Rebel
Parents here at home are buying their children modern defense gear because our government will not foot-the-bill.
There's always screw ups in any militairy operation and I'm sure the DOD is trying to fix them. There have also been cases of soldiers having to use Iraqi AK47's instead of US M16's because we just didn't have enough guns to go around.

Originally posted by Rebel
Our employees better quit dickin around with politics, and get the job done.
Whuh? That don't make no sense.

Originally posted by Rebel
Our troops deserve better than what they are getting.
Absolutely. And while they're over there getting shot at and blown up the administration is cutting Veteran's benefits, cutting in half the hazard pay, cutting the funding to the VA hospitals, even trying to cut the combat death benefit all the while giving big paybacks to Haliburton and Bechtel and cutting taxes to the very richest 1%.