Replies

Of course I'm interested...........perhaps you should have included some of 77 in your previous post so you didn't come across as Eeyore.

True. That's why I posted #77, was to try to recalibrate what I was trying to say.

This trip was an act of bravery that capped off a series of incredible events that have resulted in the perseverance and patience and STRONG leadership of President Bush.

I agree.

The symbolism is unquestionable. No one said that it wasn't still dangerous in Iraq, but that doesn't take away one single bit from this incredible event. It was an historic moment of monumental proportions, and downplaying it, IMO, is very shortsighted on your part.

You're probably right about this too (man, am I folding like a rental chair or what?) For me personally, the trip to Iraq didn't really make much of a difference. Not that it wasn't a good trip, but it didn't change my views or feelings on anything, so I guess it is just me. To me, the best thing is that increasingly, the Iraqi gubmint is taking responsibility. We are seeing media reports from the "Iraqi Nat'l Security Advisor." That's really really good to see. And you are right that it was a brave mission. But I guess that's my one negative point, is that the bravery also underlines the continuing danger that needs to be dealt with. But I totally understand how it came off when I wrote what I wrote, and I guess even when I state it more accurately, I'm probably still out of synch with most ppl. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

For the record, I don't think the trip "changed anything" either.

It just put an exclamation point on what is truly going on in Iraq, and showed the American people that they have been lied to incessantly about Iraq and denied all the positive information about the incredible progress there that the MSM has deliberately kept from them.

And as the Mom of a 'boy' who was there for 15 months and was a small part of this monumental victory, this trip meant a whole lot to me.

I've followed your posts, replies to posts, and replies to replies, etc. It seems to me that if everyone thought like you (and me) we would have different and fewer problems. They don't, of course...there's a whole continuity of belief on Iraq and on W. On W, for example, there's his core base of support, say 25%, who are stout supporters. There's his base of opposition, I would guess 25% hard core RAT DU types. Politics is what happens in that middle 50%. They run the spectrum from highly persuadable to highly doubtful. They probably don't have a lot of time to follow news, and get what they get from the headlines.

This middle 50% has been hammered by the negative press and RAT mischief making. Probably 15-20% that supported Iraq initially have serious doubts because of the drumbeat of negativity. Having good news to report, and having it reported, makes all the diference in the world to that 15-20%. W's welcome refutes, in a full color way, the cr@p about occupation.

Some folks have no interest in the issues, they make their decisions based upon their read of the guy they hire to handle it. For a lot of those people, they'll get a reminder that W is a gutsy and daring guy. It reminds them of why they voted for him in the first place. Don't underestimate the power of likeability. It's wasn't Clinton's policies that kept him popular; it wasn't his being a scoundrel. He was a likeable scoundrel.

This was a devastatingly successful trip.