Bush leaves awe in his Baghdad wake (good read)

telegraph india ^ | 11/28/03

[Jack Bauer]

See #160

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Well, that's certainly interesting. There have been very few people here who've had anything negative to say about the President's Thanksgiving trip to Iraq - and here we have a DUmmie bragging about saying some of the very things this kid is saying.

Hmmmm.

[XBob]

157 - "Burkeman1 ((If you see ten troubles comin down the road, Nine will run into the ditch before they reach you.))"

Get off your lazy butt, and get off "OUR ROAD" which we built and maintain, so that the water runs into the 'ditches' we built.

At present, You are totally lazy and worthless, and our truck is going to run over you in your 'Yugo'.

[Fledermaus]

Wow. You follow me quite closely. I don't follow you at all. I don't have "leaders". I don't worship our Executive like a king just because he happens to share my party label and I won't bay like a sheep when he makes cheap photo opps. Liberals and radicals love "Leader worship" since they don't believe in God or themselves. Conservatives (real ones) don't applaud and cheer at every cheap photo opp their "leader" makes. Conservatives don't have "leaders".

As usual, you miss the mark by a mile. I dont' "follow" you at all. I just read threads here and there you are doing the same routine over and over and over. True, I can usually predict which threads you'd probably be in because of the blinders you wear, but I'm not going to avoid threads I'm interested in just because I know you are probably in there running your routine against someone.

Also, you again change the subject. I never mentioned anything about "leaders" or worship of an Executive. But I know true LEADERSHIP when I see it.

And since you don't "follow" me, a quick search on my posts would show I am one of the GOP's and Bush's biggest critics on many issues, including the war on terror when I think he's wrong or too bureaucratic or political.

But that would require the assumption you are rationale and I've come to see that you aren't.

[bootless]

I'm definitely a man. Now what?

BRAVO!

[MEG33]

Interesting similarity in the posts you found.Hmmmm

[Burkeman1]

Sigh,

I don't think like DU.

I think for myself. Look at the title of this thread? "Awe"? Bush left "awe" in his wake? Come on! That is over the top. Since when have conservatives ever held a President in "awe"? After thinking about his visit and reading details about it I came to the conclusion that it is indeed rife for ridicule. And here is why:

Look to the rhetoric of Bush himself? A month ago he was trying to go over the heads of the press which he believed were not concentrating on the positive things going on in Iraq and over hyping the insurgency and violence (not an invaled argument but not a realistic one either.) He also kept claiming things are getting better and most Iraqis love us more and more every day.

But the nature of his visit to Iraq undermined everything he had said for months. It didn't convey any sense of security or of progress being made in Iraq. It conveyed weakness and cheapness. A 2 1/2 hour layover at the Baghdad airport in which he meet no future Iraqi leader and had his photo taken. And then he flew out with 50 to 100 fighters I would imagine blowing chaff and flares all around Airforce one. It has been met with scorn by the Iraqi people (debatable I will concede as no one knows what they think).

Is Iraq secure and getting better? One wouldn't think so by the very nature of Bush's visit to Iraq. It may have conveyed bravery to most of us. But it conveyed cowardice and vulnerability to the very people we want on our side in Iraq.

My two cents.

Just for intellectual honesty. I was against this war in Iraq from day one. I am against it now and I hope we pull out. But that doesn't stop me from trying to see the best way to win if we are going to be there (which we will even if Dean or Hillary gets in).

I think Bush's quickie visit actually bolstered the Iraqi insurgency or insurgencies rather than intimidate them.

[Burkeman1]

I did little a research. Yes- you have been quite critical of Bush. And you are not a "LEADER" cultist. I do apologize for that.

I think you are mistaken about your analysis of my posts. I support Bush and will vote for him. Note because I think he is a conservative (he isn't) but he does owe Conservatives Supreme Court nominations that are not like Souter or Kennedy or O'Conner! And he is the best chance for that. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in this country (that it should be is a matter of intense conservative debate and I will leave that alone for now) and I have been advocating that "paleos" (which I guess I am) must support Bush because the existing order must be given one last chance to win. That is the conservative thing to do! If we lose to Dean or Hillary or Kerry- then it is all over for me. I think I will just try to make my pile and retire and get a lawyer to protect it from the gubmint.

[Burkeman1]

What?

There was more popular support in South Viet Nam for our presence than there seems to be in Iraq right now. Heck- we can't even protect the "green zone" enough for our President to visit for a few days and mingle with the local elites we hope will take over in a few months.

Response? Not true? I don't know? I don't have any combat experience whatsoever! I don't know nothing about fighting! Me just dumb and very weak! You tell us!

[Jack Bauer]

I don't think like DU.

But you use the same arguments as they do.

[Burkeman1]

That they use the same arguments is only incidental. A broken clock is right twice a day. Besides- the left doesn't believe a word they say anyway. If this war was being run by Gore or any Democrat would "Answer" or any of these other insano groups be in the streets protesting? Nope, no way. They only oppose wars when they are not running them. Where were these "protestors" when Clinton was bombing the crap out of Serbia with dumb bombs from a 15'000 feet ceiling limit and killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians? Where were these "protestors" for all of Clinton's little "wag the dog" raids and interventions? They didn't care at all since it was one of their own doing the killing. In fact- when Republicans tried to stop the Kosovo bombing (which went on for 78 days) Democrats called them? Yep- traitors! And when Clinton bombed Iraq in "Operation Desert Fox" the night before the impeachment vote in the house and some Republicans questioned the timing? What did the Dems call them? Unpatriotic and tried to use that sickening bombing as an excuse to delay or cancel the impeachment vote. That day was the lowest any President has ever brought us as a nation. I will never forget it.

[ladyinred]

“Probably not since the American Civil War, when battles raged only a few miles from Washington, has the incumbent of the White House deliberately placed himself in so much danger,” the newspaper’s diplomatic editor wrote.

He ain't no girlie man our President!

[Mr. Lucky]

I don't think like DU.

Only because neither you nor DU thinks.

[Burkeman1]

What the heck is this obsession with "DU"? From what I understand - DU has like 20 percent of the membership of FR and 2 percent of our lurkers. Free Republic raised close to 70 grand last quartely fund raiser. I doubt DU could even raise 5 grand in a quarter. And yet Freepers all the time bring this whacko site up? I visited that site a few tiimes when I first heard about it. Warmed over Marxism and sickening weirdos. I even signed up because I was enraged by some ignorant post about Christians and was booted within a matter of minutes after my first post.

Jim Robinson and FR policy is that DU should be ignored and no threads about them be posted. Why would you even go to that forum?

PS- Plenty of conservatives think as I do. Check out Chronicles Magazine or Lew Rockwell.Com and sometimes Human Events.

But I support Bush if only because of the Supreme Court (and if war must be fought in Iraq- I would rather have a moral person and an adult run it rather than a amoral child Democrat.)