The main issue remains that the troops that Bush sent to Iraq, of whom thousands have been mutilated and hundreds died, which Bush is conveniently ignoring, and the remaining troops which he now visited, shouldn't have been there in the first place, the only reason they are there is because of Bushs lies and deceit on a totally superfluous, albeit extremely counter productive Iraq war that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting terror, but lots with creating fresh terror recruits ! Mission Accomplished, May 1st, 2003
I see. Raising the question itself equates to bashing and accusing? How odd. You find asking a question the same as accusing and or bashing? Imagine if I had come right out and said that Bush absolutely did go for strictly political PR reasons without genuine concern for the troops. If simply asking the question is bashing/accusing, then what is stating the opinion that he did go for political purposes directly? What kind of country are we living in now that asking questions is equated to bashing and accusing? From the perspective you shared, all pollsters that would dare to question the motives of the president would be engaged in an act of accusing/bashing. The Gallup pollsters etc. are bashing and accusing when they ask questions of this nature?
Your inflated sense of political expertise is palpable....dude. I have an inexplicable need to start up these threads? I do find that a funny statement. Oh, and my name isn't Jack.
Some Understand Covert Journey; Others Fear Bad Precedent By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 28, 2003; Page A44 Although the White House lied to much of the press to conceal President Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, many journalists and analysts yesterday were willing to give the administration a pass. "In this case, it's justified," said Bob Schieffer, CBS's chief Washington correspondent. "It was extremely important for the president to demonstrate that he's willing to go where those young men and women he sent over there have gone." If the reporters "were going with a military operation in Baghdad, they'd keep it off the record." But 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." 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." The deception was so complete that White House officials had not only said the president would be spending the holiday in Crawford, Tex., but they also announced a free-range turkey menu. The Associated Press carried a report Wednesday, based on a "senior administration official," that while in Crawford, "President Bush will spend part of his Thanksgiving Day calling soldiers to express his and the nation's gratitude for their service in Iraq." Although journalists routinely keep secret details of military operations, as they did during the war in Iraq, it is highly unusual for them not to reveal a major presidential trip overseas. Former White House spokesman Joe Lockhart, who worked for President Bill Clinton, said: "There's no way to do this kind of trip if it's broadcast in advance, for security reasons. My problem with this is not that he misled the press. This is a president who has been unwilling to provide his presence to the families who have suffered but thinks nothing of flying to Baghdad to use the troops there as a prop." But Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of National Review Online, called the trip "a political masterstroke," saying: "This wasn't lying about an 18-minute gap on a tape or lying under oath. If they had announced the trip and there were attacks and people had died, everyone would be screaming bloody murder about how Bush put people in harm's way. I'm sure the press corps has their dresses over their head about it, but I sincerely doubt anyone in the real America will have any concern about it whatsoever." Rosenstiel, however, said the trip "was much bigger news on a slow news day if it was unexpected. What reporters have done by going along with this is to help Bush politically." The 13 pool correspondents summoned for the trip included Jim Angle of Fox News, the AP's Terence Hunt, Mike Allen of The Washington Post, Richard Keil of Bloomberg News, a Reuters reporter and photographers from Time, Newsweek and three wire services. The White House uses a rotating system for a pool that includes newspaper, wire-service and television reporters when the president travels, but even news executives were uncertain yesterday whether the standard procedures had been followed. Mike Abramowitz, The Post's national editor, said Allen did not tell his editors of the Baghdad trip in advance. "I'm glad Mike was on the plane. He had a great file," Abramowitz said. But, he added, "I am concerned that no one on the desk knew where a White House reporter was." Kim Hume, Fox's Washington bureau chief, who knew that Angle was going, said White House officials "obviously made a decision that this was more important than the flak they were going to take from it." She said the administration took a network pool crew, as it was supposed to, and "we didn't get any competitive advantage from it." Had more journalists been told, Hume said, "the story would have leaked in about two seconds" because "news people are the biggest gossips alive." Kathryn Kross, CNN's Washington bureau chief, said a two-person crew from her network was dismissed from the White House pool Wednesday, with the understanding that no further news would be made. "We're all for the president boosting the troops however the White House feels is appropriate," she said. "But apparently the White House put together its own group of people to accompany the president on this trip, and we're real interested to learn their reasons for doing that." The surprise visit produced upbeat, sometimes gushing coverage on the cable networks, which kept rerunning video of Bush with a turkey platter and his pep talk to the troops. "This is a show of power. . . . This has significance in terms of showing the power of the presidency," Fox anchor David Asman said. Time's Vivian Walt said on CNN that "an electric shock went through the room" and that for Bush, crying and trembling, it was "a taste of victory." The message, retired Col. Ken Allard said on MSNBC, is that "you underestimate George Bush at your peril. It was a gutsy call, a Hail Mary pass, and he pulled it off." Past official deceptions have tended to involve military matters. In 1983, then-White House spokesman Larry Speakes told a reporter a day before the United States invaded Grenada that the idea was "preposterous."
The veracity of that insight is most admirably demonstrated by Bushs Iraq war, the poor soldiers, thousands mutilated, hundreds dead, are there as cannon fodder only because of Bushs lies and deceit on a totally superfluous, albeit extremely counter productive Iraq war that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting terror, but lots with creating fresh terror recruits ! Mission Accomplished, May 1st, 2003
you'd have to be a very cold man to be the president of the usa and not care about your soldiers. we've seen bush is an emotional guy sometimes. when we see him on tv interacting with the troops or his feelings about them, you can tell he cares, no matter what bush bashers say. i would say he went to support the troops, but yes, he was also aware it was a good political move, too. a win:win situation.
If Clinton had done the same thing, would you see it the same way? I think this is the acid test of objectivity. Look at something Bush does, and ask someone if they would feel the same if Clinton did the exact same thing.....
Try and put it in context by prefacing your interrogatories with: "In view of my recurring preponderance to post anti-conservative comments..."
So in your world, because I promote critical thinking which you see as anti-conservative, any question I ask is necessarily bashing/accusing?
I am a bit dubious about the Bush Administration's obsession with IRAQ and all of the politics that revolve around the decision to invade, liberate, or occupy that country, weapons of mass destruction or no weapons of mass destruction. HOWEVER, whether or not you are a republican, democrat, or independent, you have to agree that President Bush showing up in IRAQ on Thanksgiving Day was an awesome gesture on his part! I believe that it was sincere and very genuine. I applaud him for his sense of compassion and leadership. I'm sure that the troops did as well!