Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Bush Makes Surprise Visit to Baghdad

Iraq Bush Visit to Baghdad

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 November 2003 - 03:16 AM

^You'd think it was a little premature to start retconning already. :p :p
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#62 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 30 November 2003 - 06:51 AM

I think this thread is diverging somewhat from the original topic.  But you know, if I was a soldier over there I can't help but think that I'd be pretty damn appreciative if my President, any President, had the guts to fly to one of the most dangerous spots in the world just to spend an hour or two sharing a meal with me.  And to hell with politics.

#63 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 30 November 2003 - 09:38 AM

Somewhat belatedly:

The President’s visit to Iraq neither impresses or disgusts me. He was simply doing his job, as commander and chief, for which he deserves no fault, or kudos.

The cynic in me says this had more to do with senator Clinton’s visit to the region, then a moral boost for the troops. Again he may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

The way I see it, Hillary is the only real opposition to President Bush. I think that at the democratic convention we will eventually get a Clark – Clinton, or a Clinton – Clark ticket. To my way of thinking this ticket is the only democratic team that stands a snowball’s chance in hell against Bush come the election. Clark to persecute the war against terrorism: and the Clinton’s on health care and the economy.

Do I think that a Clark - Clinton team can get the job done? NO, but then neither can Bush. Bush hasn’t figured out that the American public knows that free trade may mean cheaper goods, but the cheap goods come at the cost of our jobs. What does it matter how cheap the goods are, if you have no money anyway, cause your job was out sourced over seas. Maybe President bush should reread the fairy tale about the goose and the golden egg. We are great and we are strong but no way in hell can 300,000,000 of us provide markets for the 5.7 billion of the rest of the world. Hell we can’t support China’s 1.6 billion, with our markets, as we are being asked to now. The Bush people keep repeating the phrase “a level playing-field,” my only question is whose level is this playing field on.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 30 November 2003 - 09:40 AM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#64 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 30 November 2003 - 01:16 PM

MuseZack, on Nov 29 2003, 10:40 AM, said:

We're still at war, a war that's simply mutated from a clash of conventional armies into an insurgency.
Perhaps so. You can term it whichever way you want. The thing is, though, that Bush never said the fighting was over. He never declared victory. Pundits did.

Quote

Kosh: Maybe you didn't get that impression from GWB's speach, but probably a lot of the USA did, that's why he's catching so much flack now. Personally, I'm not one of them. It's gone better then I thought it would, but I'd still be surprised if it lasted less then 5 years.

I'm just judging Bush on what he actually said, plus how I interpret it. Naturally, I carry baggage with me, but I think I'm being as unbiased as I can. And I think 5 years is a fair estimate.

Quote

Sorry Rov, I guess it was the Lincoln speach. He gave as much of an impression of winng in Iraq as he coulod, without coming right out and saying it.

The tyrant *has* fallen. He lacks effective control of Iraq. But yeah, the "Iraq is free" comment is preemptive; freedom is near-impossible without real security.

Quote

Looks like the Washington Times agreed.

Can I see the rest of the article?

Quote

When the White House published the text of and photos from Bush's speech announcing the supposed end of the Iraq attack, the headline read: "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." But on Tuesday, 19 Aug 2003, the Cursor website noticed that the headline had been changed to read: "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." The word "major" had been added.

I've heard this before. The reason is obvious: The white house website changed the page to match what Bush actually said. His speech actually had the words "Major combat operations", as the transcript above shows. Why shouldn't a webpage be edited to be more accurate?

EDIT: To prove the point, here's every instance of combat operations in the speech:

Quote

Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card (ph), officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended.

That's it. The qualifier 'major' is very important, and the WH was remiss to forget to include it the first time. It's oddly comforting to know that even the white house has issues designing an accurate webpage.

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 30 November 2003 - 01:18 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#65 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 10:25 AM

D day Causalities
The Allies suffered 27,000 casualties before breaking through the German lines.

The battle of Kirsk
Three million men fought in the world’s largest tank battle. I haven’t the causality numbers. The Russians still don’t know how many they lost.

Dieppe (August 19, 1942)
About 3,000 of the 5,000 Canadians involved in the operation were killed or captured.

World War II: Stalingrad (1942-43)
250,000 Germans, and newly recalculated Russian figures show that 1,000,000 Russians died at Stalingrad

Gettysburg;
From Memory approximately 26,000

Iwo Jima;
Organized resistance ended after 26 days on Iwo Jima, at the cost of 19,938 Marine casualties. The Japanese defenders took Gen. Kuribayashi at his word. There were less than 1,000 prisoners taken out of 22,000 soldiers.


Causalities of World War II
Country Total Deaths % of Pre-war Population Military Deaths Civilian Deaths
USSR 20,600,000 10.4% 13,600,000 7,000,000
Germany 6,850,000 9.5% 3,250,000 3,600,000
France 810,000 1.9% 340,000 470,000
United States 500,000 0.4% 500,000 ----
Great Britain 388,000 0.8% 326,000 62,000
© The National D-Day Museum

The above are major combat operations. What we are fighting now is more rightly called a police action. So Bush was right when he said major combat operations where over.

Thank God you don’t have practice of dealing with such numbers of Causalities.

I don’t like Bush, as Will Rogers once said; “I don’t belong to an organized political party, I’m a registered democrat.”


The war should be left to the commanders on the ground, and not second guessed by armchair generals.

I see the war on terrorism being used by both sides to distract the American public from the true problems in this country.

Global free trade will do the one thing armies could not do, it will destroy this country, and we will have only ourselves to blame. So stop carping about something you have no control and start worrying about yours and your children’s life styles, about where the next meal is coming from. As long as you fixate on the war, your playing Bush’s game, a game he’ already won.

At least Clinton had the basics right, “It’s the economy stupid.” Then he screwed us on free trade.

Sparky::
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#66 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 11:01 AM

Quote

More Americans  were killed or wounded by 7:30 am at Antietam [in the cornfield] than were killed all day on June 6, 1944, and the battle of Antietam was just getting started.

or September 11,2001, and far out pacing our caualties in the current war in Iraq...

Quote

Consider what Americans who lived in the Civil War must have felt when the casualty lists from Antietam (23,150), Gettysburg (more than 50,000), Chickamauga (28,399) and other battles were published. Worse than the battles were the lists of those who died from disease - two of every three of the 622,000 who died in the Civil War. The despair in the cities, towns and hamlets during those four bloody years must have been overpowering at times.

Casualties of Warby Thomas R. Fasulo

Quote

If they could continue to live in such terrible times, when they shuddered in anticipation of the next day's newspapers and its casualty lists, how can we shrink from our own fear of the loss of a loved one or economic hardship? Do statistics really matter? Which is worse, 6,000 dead in one day, or 622,000 dead in four years? Perhaps John Dunne answered this when he wrote in his Devotions #17, "...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#67 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:17 PM

Quote

Can I see the rest of the article?

I got the clip off of a web site that didn't seem to have the rest of the article. I get the impression that all the trouble is declaring Victory, but saying the war on terror isn't over. He may have been refering to Iraq, saying that the war wasn't over, but it looked like he was saying that Iraq was over. I'm working again, and I don't know if I'll get a chance to look again tonight. I've been off almost three weeks on vacation, and things are a little crazy here. I didn't get lunch till after three pm. I'm supposed to bowl tonight, but there is a problem at the building with the breakers, and as of a month ago it's my job. I get to flip breakers tonight till I find the right one. All of them are marked, but none of the markings match up with our current room numbers. None of the breakers look like they have been tripped, so I may be here a few minutes, or a couple of hours.
Can't Touch This!!

#68 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:34 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Nov 28 2003, 08:01 AM, said:

aphrael, on Nov 27 2003, 06:39 PM, said:

Apparently, I will not agree with any of you who like Bush.
This kind of assumption pisses me off.  ANYONE who's spent ANY amount of time in OT knows DAMNED well that I LOATHE Bush with a burning passion.  It steams the crap out of me that someone who assumes that just because I agree with ONE thing he has done I must LIKE him.  In my not so humble opinion that kind of assumption is NO better than the assumption made by some that disagreement with Bush's policies, dislike of him and/or opposition to the War is synonymous with treason.  It's stupid.  

Lil
Don't hold back, Lil.  What do you really think?
:thumbs-up:
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#69 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:37 PM

^It's nice to see people encouraging our shy little wallflower to come out of her shell...

;) ;) :lol:  :hehe:
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#70 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:43 PM

emsparks, on Nov 30 2003, 02:38 PM, said:

The way I see it, Hillary is the only real opposition to President Bush. I think that at the democratic convention we will eventually get a Clark – Clinton, or a Clinton – Clark ticket. To my way of thinking this ticket is the only democratic team that stands a snowball’s chance in hell against Bush come the election. Clark to persecute the war against terrorism: and the Clinton’s on health care and the economy.
Maybe trading on a little insider information here but I will bet BIG money that neither one of them is on the ticket.  And almost for precisely the reasons you give as their being the only two who can defeat Bush.  Neither the politics nor the policies are on their (i.e. Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton) side.

But, I admit, this is a topic for another thread.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#71 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:53 PM

For the record, Javert Rovinski, CJ AEGIS, Uncle Sid and HubcapDave are correct when they say that "Mission Accomplished" (and the implication that all hostilities in Iraq were ending) was not something Bush had said (or even really implied).  That was something the media coverage tagged on to him.

If Bush had a problem, it was in not setting the record straight immediately. And in fairness to him, there was no reason to set the record straight until after the media started making sich a big brouhaha over something he did not say.

As for the trip to Baghdad, sincerest kudos to the President.  He took a serious risk for a good cause; supporting our troops.  Yes, it plays will with the political polls, but I for one don't think it was politically motivated.  And even if it was -- which again, I don't think it was -- I still wholeheartedly support it.  It did good where it was supposed to do good: with the moral of the troops.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#72 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 04:54 PM

Yama, on Dec 1 2003, 05:43 PM, said:

emsparks, on Nov 30 2003, 02:38 PM, said:

The way I see it, Hillary is the only real opposition to President Bush. I think that at the democratic convention we will eventually get a Clark – Clinton, or a Clinton – Clark ticket. To my way of thinking this ticket is the only democratic team that stands a snowball’s chance in hell against Bush come the election. Clark to persecute the war against terrorism: and the Clinton’s on health care and the economy.
Maybe trading on a little insider information here but I will bet BIG money that neither one of them is on the ticket.  And almost for precisely the reasons you give as their being the only two who can defeat Bush.  Neither the politics nor the policies are on their (i.e. Wesley Clark and Hillary Clinton) side.

But, I admit, this is a topic for another thread.
Have to agree with Yama. I don't think Hillary could be elected. The USA will elect a woman at some point, but I don't think it will be her.

If not Ms. Rice, there is a republican rep from West Virginia. She is closer to the middle then most conservatives, and would probably stand a good chance of becoming Vice President. Maybe president somewhere down the line. She defeated a Dem twice for the same seat. He out spent her 10 million to about 2 million in two elections. I think she may be making a mistake by not running for Governor this coming election. She is politicly hot, and the current governor isn't runnig for another term. There is a popular dem running, but he has been beaten before and I think she could beat him this time. She has decided not to run, and will finish her time in the house. Keep an eye on Shelly Capito.
Can't Touch This!!

#73 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 05:40 PM

Lord Ravensburg, on Nov 30 2003, 07:51 AM, said:

But you know, if I was a soldier over there I can't help but think that I'd be pretty damn appreciative if my President, any President, had the guts to fly to one of the most dangerous spots in the world just to spend an hour or two sharing a meal with me.  And to hell with politics.
Completely agreed.


Unfortunately Bush could take a bullet right now and some people would say it was planned as a press opportunity.  It's just not rational.


Great moments make great press, but that rarely is why they happen.


Anyone who actually saw the clips of him over there would have to be blind to not think he was sincere.

#74 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 05:54 PM

StarDust, on Dec 1 2003, 04:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately Bush could take a bullet right now and some people would say it was planned as a press opportunity.  It's just not rational.
Just as the unwavering support so many still express for the Bush Administration's policies is not rational. Discussion of Bush is so politicized now it seems you're either for or against him. There's no dispassionate discussion of the policies on a case by case basis.

Imo, the Bush team (and the GOP) have used the wartime atmosphere of 9/11 and the new Iraq War to push a lot of amendments and bills through that wouldn't have survived a free debate, like the changes to the environmental laws.

I am so tired of that man and all of the trouble and strife he has brought into the realm of political discussion. Couldn't he just take his turkey and his advisors and go away? Sigh...
Per aspera ad astra

#75 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 01 December 2003 - 08:19 PM

Kevin Street, on Dec 1 2003, 10:54 PM, said:

StarDust, on Dec 1 2003, 04:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately Bush could take a bullet right now and some people would say it was planned as a press opportunity.  It's just not rational.
Just as the unwavering support so many still express for the Bush Administration's policies is not rational. Discussion of Bush is so politicized now it seems you're either for or against him. There's no dispassionate discussion of the policies on a case by case basis.

Imo, the Bush team (and the GOP) have used the wartime atmosphere of 9/11 and the new Iraq War to push a lot of amendments and bills through that wouldn't have survived a free debate, like the changes to the environmental laws.

I am so tired of that man and all of the trouble and strife he has brought into the realm of political discussion. Couldn't he just take his turkey and his advisors and go away? Sigh...
Kevin Street, I agree with you that:

"Discussion of Bush is so politicized now it seems you're either for or against him. There's no dispassionate discussion of the policies on a case by case basis."

However, if you think that Bush is the cause of it, you are sadly mistaken.  Do you remember a guy named William Jefferson Clinton and all the polemics and partisanship that he inspired?

And yet, I am not evem blaming Clinton (nor his conservative adversaries) for the current condition of things.  For whatever reason, we have become and are becoming a very divided nation.  Liberals and conseratives rarely actually dialogue with one another; thus both the Left and the Right is becoming more radicalized and the mythical Middle is vanishing altogether.

For me, I strongly agree with the President on some things while I strongly disagree with him on others.  But the one thing I cannot say is that President Bush in any way caused it.  It started way before he ever entered politics and it will probably be here long afterwards.










Note: Personally, I think it all started with those who made "Bork" into a verb.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#76 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 02 December 2003 - 07:30 PM

Yama, on Dec 1 2003, 07:19 PM, said:

Kevin Street, I agree with you that:

"Discussion of Bush is so politicized now it seems you're either for or against him. There's no dispassionate discussion of the policies on a case by case basis."

However, if you think that Bush is the cause of it, you are sadly mistaken.  Do you remember a guy named William Jefferson Clinton and all the polemics and partisanship that he inspired?
I heard some of it, but mostly the stuff that leaked into talk show monologues and the editorial section of the paper. Back then I wasn't paying as much attention to American politics (and I didn't much care about Clinton one way or the other), but now it's inescapable. Bush and his initiatives are in the Canadian news every day - mainly because so many of his intiatives are related to foreign policy.

I see what you mean, though. Clinton's Administration was the first one to really divide Americans along party lines.

Quote

And yet, I am not evem blaming Clinton (nor his conservative adversaries) for the current condition of things.  For whatever reason, we have become and are becoming a very divided nation.  Liberals and conseratives rarely actually dialogue with one another; thus both the Left and the Right is becoming more radicalized and the mythical Middle is vanishing altogether.

That's one reason I hope we can keep a dialog going here in OT. This may just be a small message board with a few hundred members (and only a few dozen that really participate in OT), but every little bit helps.

This divisive trend has to stop. America's political health is in jeopardy, imo.

Quote

For me, I strongly agree with the President on some things while I strongly disagree with him on others.  But the one thing I cannot say is that President Bush in any way caused it.  It started way before he ever entered politics and it will probably be here long afterwards.










Note: Personally, I think it all started with those who made "Bork" into a verb.

Bork? Are you talking abut the Swedish Chef, or the judge? ;)

Darn those muppets!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, Bush, Visit to Baghdad

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users