Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dubya's Air Force One Crash-Lands in Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dubya's Air Force One Crash-Lands in Iraq

    The way he surprised everybody shouldn't surprise anybody ()

    Had the visit been announced the donkey carts wit SA-7 missiles would have been waiting around the airport. But now the bad guys won't have the time to plan it out and react. The terrorist donkeys will be disappointed this Thanksgiving day.
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 27 Nov 03, 11:44.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Not in their interest to knock off W. Look who is VP .
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

    Comment


    • #3
      GWB, showboating as usual...
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Chuck
        GWB, showboating as usual...
        So when a commander visits the troops it's showboating? Funny, in the Army we called it leadership.
        Editor-in-Chief
        GameSquad.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Don Maddox
          So when a commander visits the troops it's showboating? Funny, in the Army we called it leadership.
          How long did he stay for? It's a good photo op, he made sure to bring along reporters and a camera crew. Probably will show up in one of his campaign ads in the coming month.

          What's really funny is he has time for this stunt, but doesn't have time to attend a funeral of a soldier from Washington, DC who was killed. I guess Presidential leadership is only OK when it looks good on TV.
          Last edited by Chuck?; 27 Nov 03, 12:39.
          "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

          Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

          Comment


          • #6
            Jokes aside, what's the problem with giving the troops in Iraq a bit of morale boost? Those are your friends and neighbors and high school buddies. They're not part of the political smearing activities. There will be happy faces in the American camp today and we owe it to them.

            "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
            --Frederick II, King of Prussia

            Comment


            • #7
              So far there are no photos available on CNN. What president ever goes anywhere without an official photographer or representatives from various news agencies? None.

              It's hardly unusual for the commander in chief to visit with troops on Thanksgiving. Almost every modern US president does that. President Clinton visited Bosnia. What's the big deal?
              Editor-in-Chief
              GameSquad.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Don Maddox
                What's the big deal?
                Well, at least he didn't land on an aircraft carrier in a fighter plane to declare "mission accomplished" this time. I mean that stunt cost some millions of dollars and they can't really afford that right now:

                http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...4811-1453r.htm

                BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 25 (UPI) -- The fund used to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure has temporarily run dry, creating an embarrassing setback for U.S. troops overseeing it.

                "It is a tough pill to swallow," Col. Ralph Baker, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, told USA Today. "One of the hardest things I deal with right now is coming face to face with the (Iraqi) contractors who we still owe money."

                The money is used for such things as hiring Iraqis to repair roads, sewers and small civic projects.

                Replacement funds from the United States are not expected until next month, but commanders say the timing couldn't be worse because it will hurt U.S. credibility and the ability to win over Iraqis.

                "Money is our ammo," says Col. Joseph Anderson, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul. "We had many plans based on good faith, and people expect results. We are now having to explain why we can't follow through."
                "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Don Maddox
                  So far there are no photos available on CNN. What president ever goes anywhere without an official photographer or representatives from various news agencies? None.
                  Not none. It's all over the news. You can see plenty of pictures. He could of had no reporters if he was really more concerned about secrecy than image. The plane actually stopped to pick the camera crew up!

                  It's hardly unusual for the commander in chief to visit with troops on Thanksgiving. Almost every modern US president does that. President Clinton visited Bosnia. What's the big deal?
                  Sure, there is nothing wrong in particular with it. When the first Bush and Clinton did, it was done correctly. They managed the situation well.

                  However with this President, and his 'bring it on' persona, it's all bascially about the Cowboy showboating. Anyway it will look good in ads next fall along with his landing on the aircraft carrier.
                  Attached Files
                  "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                  Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From the article:

                    The plane stopped at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., outside Washington, to pick up a few aides and four reporters and a camera crew sworn to secrecy. Five photographers and another reporter accompanied him from Texas after being summoned just hours before his departure.
                    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That's exactly what some people find so irritating about Bush - his swagger. He is supremely confident and does not govern by polls. He doesn't speak in Washington double-speak, and this alienates some people who believe politicians should be preening, and almost apologetic.

                      Bush is the opposite: self confident and bold. He speaks in terms the average person can clearly identify with. Who cares if Europeans don't like his personality. They don't get to vote in US elections.

                      9/11 and the years after it are dangerous and complicated. What should have the US reaction been? To leave Saddam and the Taliban in power? To run from Al Qaeda at the slightest hint of trouble? To get along at any cost?

                      After 9/11 there was sympathy in much of the world for the US, but that is gone now. Good. We have no need for sympathy. What we need is allies and people who will stand up and make a difference.

                      Bush once said when referring to the war on terror, that "you are either with us or against us." Some people took offense to this rather simple - and self evident - notion. They said we don't have to choose a side, your worries are not our worries. There may be an element of truth to that. They can choose not to be a part of this conflict. If they are going to hold their aid then let them also hold their tongue, for this conflict doesn't involve them - by their own choice.

                      Bush isn't perfect, but he is a decisive man. He understands that this isn't the time to conduct a poll to see what we should do next. High level insiders in the Democratic party are cringing over the Dean campaign. Even far left liberals hesitate when imagining Dean as commander in chief. If Howard Dean is truly going to be the Democratic reply to Bush, then we may have passed the time when American voters take that party seriously.
                      Editor-in-Chief
                      GameSquad.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Don Maddox
                        That's exactly what some people find so irritating about Bush - his swagger. He is supremely confident and does not govern by polls. He doesn't speak in Washington double-speak, and this alienates some people who believe politicians should be preening, and almost apologetic.
                        I disagree. It's his idiocy. Oh, and there is still plenty of double-speak going on in DC.

                        9/11 and the years after it are dangerous and complicated. What should have the US reaction been? To leave Saddam and the Taliban in power? To run from Al Qaeda at the slightest hint of trouble? To get along at any cost?
                        What are you writing about this now? What does leaving the Taliban in power have to with 'Turkeygate' or even Iraq? This is going off on a wide tangent...

                        Oh, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Actually, if anything, he was probably our Ally in our fight against Al Qaeda.

                        I'd bet for a secret shipment of SAMs he would of put his goons to work for us on the 9/11 case.

                        Bush once said when referring to the war on terror, that "you are either with us or against us." Some people took offense to this rather simple - and self evident - notion. They said we don't have to choose a side, your worries are not our worries. There may be an element of truth to that. They can choose not to be a part of this conflict. If they are going to hold their aid then let them also hold their tongue, for this conflict doesn't involve them - by their own choice.
                        Self evident? Seriously? If another country doesn't back the Bush agenda that automatically makes them America's enemy? It was just more simplistic 'swagger' that can only cut off the US further from the rest of the civilized world.

                        Bush isn't perfect, but he is a decisive man. He understands that this isn't the time to conduct a poll to see what we should do next. High level insiders in the Democratic party are cringing over the Dean campaign. Even far left liberals hesitate when imagining Dean as commander in chief. If Howard Dean is truly going to be the Democratic reply to Bush, then we may have passed the time when American voters take that party seriously.
                        Ever hear of Karl Rove?

                        Sure Bush doesn't conduct polls...
                        Last edited by Chuck?; 27 Nov 03, 15:38.
                        "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                        Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chuck
                          I disagree. It's his idiocy. Oh, and there is still plenty of double-speak going on in DC.
                          Oh you'll find plenty of highly intelligent liberals in Washington that will tell you Bush is far from an idiot. Just because he speaks in unapologetic "Texan" don't underestimate the man. He has far more formal education than the vast majority of the members of this forum. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I also knew he wasn't an idiot.
                          What are you writing about this now? What does leaving the Taliban in power have to with 'Turkeygate' or even Iraq? This is going off on a wide tangent...
                          Probably true, but I was on a roll...
                          Oh, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Actually, if anything, he was probably our Ally in our fight against Al Qaeda.
                          Really, and may I ask your source for this information?
                          Self evident? Seriously? If another country doesn't back the Bush agenda that automatically makes them America's enemy? It was just more simplistic 'swagger' that can only cut off the US further from the rest of the civilized world.
                          If they seriously have to spend any time debating between supporting us or Osama, how civilized can they be?

                          I'm guessing I took Bush's statement as more generalized than you did. As if he had said, "we are at war with crime. You're either with us or the criminals." Seriously, who would side on the side of crime but criminals?

                          You are accusing Bush of oversimplifying the issue. Perhaps the issue really is a simple one. We simply don't want to face the reality of it because it makes us uncomfortable.

                          Ever hear of Karl Rove?

                          Sure Bush doesn't conduct polls...
                          I didn't say the Bush administration never conducted a poll. I said Bush doesn't "govern by polls." Whether you agree or disagree with him, you have to admit that Bush has his ideals and appears to make policy based on what he thinks is best, not what is most popular. many politicians flip flop all the time and would crawl on their belly to get higher poll numbers. Bush seems to hardly care what his approval rating is. His supporters will point to that as a sign of true leadership. Opponents will say its because he is insensitive.
                          Editor-in-Chief
                          GameSquad.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Don Maddox
                            Oh you'll find plenty of highly intelligent liberals in Washington that will tell you Bush is far from an idiot. Just because he speaks in unapologetic "Texan" don't underestimate the man. He has far more formal education than the vast majority of the members of this forum. I didn't like Bill Clinton, but I also knew he wasn't an idiot.
                            Well you're probably right. However idiocy and being an idiot are two different things. One doesn't have to be an idiot to follow a policy of idiocy. Idiocy is defined in part as 'a foolish or stupid utterance or deed'.

                            Is Bush rhetoric 'foolish or stupid'? I'd say so. He seems to be good at driving away long time or potential allies anyway.

                            Really, and may I ask your source for this information?
                            I have no source in particular. However it's generally well acknowledged that his regime was unfriendly toward the islamic fundamentalist terror groups. Seriously, Bush could of worked with Saddam on this issue had he wanted to. Obviously it all would have to be kept under wraps. Heck, maybe he did work with Saddam on the 9/11 case.

                            If they seriously have to spend any time debating between supporting us or Osama, how civilized can they be?
                            What does Iraq have to do with Osama? I thought he was in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
                            "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                            Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Don Maddox
                              Bush once said when referring to the war on terror, that "you are either with us or against us." Some people took offense to this rather simple - and self evident - notion.
                              His quote was "with us" or "with the terrorists". Big difference.

                              If they are going to hold their aid then let them also hold their tongue, for this conflict doesn't involve them - by their own choice.
                              1. They aren't holding their aid. If you think they are, be sure to send back their share of the $13 billion in non-US reconstruction aid to Iraq. Make sure to send home their troops in Afghanistan. Reject intelligence cooperation. Tell Bush to stop sending out his aides to beg for money and troops and so on and so forth.

                              2. The conflict against terror does directly involve them. The conflict with Iraq does not, because it was not a part of the war on terror by any reasonable standard. I used past tense because obviously it is part of the war on terror now, thanks to the US invasion.

                              3. You would need to get your own government to 'hold their tongue' on conflicts they are not directly involved in before you can reasonably expect others to follow such an edict.

                              Really, and may I ask your source for this information?
                              Bush is on record explicitly stating that there is no evidence linking 9/11 and Saddam. He did not say they were not linked but that's because that Yale degree his daddy bought him appears to have taught him elementary level logic - one can not prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove there is a link... more so since you're the one trying to link Saddam and 9/11.

                              If they seriously have to spend any time debating between supporting us or Osama, how civilized can they be?
                              Your logic needs work.

                              I'm guessing I took Bush's statement as more generalized than you did. As if he had said, "we are at war with crime. You're either with us or the criminals." Seriously, who would side on the side of crime but criminals?
                              A more accurate analogy would be if he said what you noted, but added that to wage war on crime would require arbitrary detention, JDAMs on the ghetto and other undesirable means. But there's no need for that context, because semantics on its own isn't going to validate your position regardless.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X