Credit to Bush - Visiting soldiers in Iraq

Remove all ads!

I would feel like he stopped for a tune up on his plane and decided to mingle while he waited. So, slightly upset on the non-visit.

 

I know that I would have enjoyed my Thanksgiving "dinner" more if it hadn't been breakfast.

 

Of course, if he hadn't gone Bush's critics would have produced ridiculous articles like the one Chandos quoted. "BUSH ABANDONS SOLDIERS IN IRAQ" or some such nonsense would've been the headlines.

Of course, presidents don't generally attend the funerals of soldiers.

Chandos does hit the nail on the head with Bush supporters (I'll align myself with Grey Magistrate et al.). It's not about support for the Bush himself -- it's support for the country.

Oh, and if this was merely a publicity stunt, then why were so few reporters brought along?

 

Well, Chandos, I think I found out why we're speaking past each other. I never meant it would effect the situation in an exterior way for the soldiers, but an interior way.

This is the core of what I've been trying to say.

The whole situation is crap, not a situation that should have happened at all IMO. I'm just pointing out that here's actually something I find good, and thus deserve credit.

 

I don't get it. What's the big deal?

He put them there in the first place, why shouldn't he visit?

In the very least he should have choked on a piece of sushi like his dad did when he visited Japan... or maybe gotten a new shiner from one of those suicide pretzel bombers.

A little entertainment can go a long way.

 

Ah, Lokken, I see what you mean now. I must need some rest because I was so slow at catching on (my eyes are burning with fatigue because of the new baby). Sorry, my bad.

I see that my link has already died to the Arizona Daily Star. The author of that article was a former Ronald Reagan associate. I figured that if the former Reagan people were complaining of Bush's neglect for the families of the former soldiers, that it would not be just a right vs left issue.

[ December 02, 2003, 05:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Bush really shouldn't have taken the risk for a mere PR stunt! A blessing he didn't try to stay overnight, like Wolfie so provocantly did ...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33090-2003Dec3.html

 

Bush made clear his support to the troops in Iraq when he requested $80 000 000 000 from congress to continue the "efforts overseas". If he really wanted to be an inspirational leader, he would have spent thanksgiving honoring the soldiers that gave their lives for Saudi oil, er, for Freedom.

He could have had turkey dinner with my friend Paul Dyer, (a poor Canadian who lost his only son uselessly in this bloody conflict and is now alone) and asked Paul what he was thankful for this year.

The only people truly thankful at this point are the American businesses cashing in on the lucrative "rebuilding" contracts.

 

OK, knew this would come up sooner or later. Why should my tax dollars (meaning the money withheld from my earnings) go to a representative of a foreign nation who refused to support the US actions in the first place?

Why should US dollars flow into the coffers of French and German corporations, when US, Italian, Polish, British, Spanish and Iraqi blood stain the soil of that porous land?

This is one of the few recent Bush Admin actions that I can staunchly stand behind. If they weren't with us from the begining, Screw em'. Why should they see the rewards in Marks and Francs (Ugh, I'm sorry...Euro's) for the blood of American boys.

The French were the first, mind you, to get into the food line to take advantage of the swift and ovewhelming defeat of the conventional Iraqi forces...vultures!

Belgium...Norway...can't you please take France and call it your "Province of No-brains and Cahoney's"?

 

Hey Hack, Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the contracts should be given to France, Germany, or, ahem Canada.

I am suggesting that the only reason for the US to invade Iraq in the first place (other than Saudi Oil, that is) was to create a situation under which there would be contracts to be handed out, and where the US would control the patronage of those contracts.

In the world of legitimate business, this is called a conflict of interest.

In fact, a declassified file from GWI (Gulf War One - and that's mine) quotes Bush as stating that a key reason that the US pulled out when they did was so as not to jeaopardize rebuilding contracts.

Just so we're clear.

 

You'd have a valid argument if the approved list didn't include countries who paid mere lip service to the 'coalition of the willing'.

 

Hmmmmm...

I am not particularly aware of the US enjoying any significant windfall of profit in the aftermath of GWI (kudo's Ishmael, we always need new good acronyms). I think if any one nation were to be pointed out as having benefited, it would be Saudi Arabia.

Well, as they say at my favorite French restaurant "Monsieur, lip service is better than no service at all". I don't care if some hapless nation only said "way to go, US", and donated a crushed traffic cone, that puts them way ahead of nations who sought to undermine our efforts. They should at least have the integrity to stick to their convictions.

 

Well, apart from the fact that this has become outrageously off-topic, I would like to say that I don't think it is really worth debating whether the countries that proffited were entitled to or not, but I have to agree it seems to be reasonable to assume that the profits go to the countries involved (whatever side of the field they were on), yes, integrity at least whether it is integrity misplaced or not is still integrity, and should be rewarded as such.

BTW, a conflict of interests is what a war is. I have yet to find one that wasn't fought to benefit at least one of the sides involved, if not both.

 

Manus has a valid point. We have gotten way off topic. The first Moderator to visit will likely chide us for rambling and perhaps even smack our knuckles.

If any of you want to continue to discuss the notion of rebuilding contracts and profit from the war, start a new thread and I will join you there to annoy you further.

 

No, that's Conflict of Interest. Not conflict of InterestS. The difference is that a conflict of interest is when a one party has multiple, conflicting interests (such as a lawyer representeing both the plaintiff and defendant), rendering the party incapable of making judgements true to their interests.

In this case, The US went to war with Iraq ostensibly to uncover WMD, punish sadaam for ties with Al-Qaeda, etc.

Those motives are at loggerheads with the US economic interest in waging war, which are motivated by thirst for profits. Rebuilding is ultimately about moving capital from Iraq to the US and it's cronies.