BUSH spends HIS Thanksgiving in Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=540&ncid=716

Now whether you love Bush or hate him, its things like this that can guarantee that you are going to see 4 more years of him - so better get used to it :wg:

All the far left will dismiss it as political stage drama but the truth is something that you dont want to admit - Bush actually has a spine (unlike any of your so called heros) and for better or worse, is committed to what he believes in - and part of what he believes in is those boys (and girls) he went to visit - Thats his family - we have NEVER in recent memory had a US President actually visit the troops in the middle of what is still a war zone - taking some risk with them (albiet small but not too small since DHL plane got shot last week).

"We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost of casualties, defeat a ruthless dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins," - I think that says it pretty clearly.

Yeah the man does have some big hairy cojones :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palme

Yeah the man does have some big hairy cojones :D

---

and you like em!!! :dg:

I support Bush!!!..and... I love Bush!!!..........Two diffrent types of things... same concept.....Gotta love America!!!

Go George!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy must despise Bush but he cant really get anything on him - yet look how he tries to turn every thing against Bush, as if they had to handcuff Bush and drag him to bagdad - and they say the news is unbiased :lol:

Aides Prodded Reluctant Bush on Iraq Trip

By Adam Entous

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - For a president fond of a tough-guy image, George W. Bush was uneasy when an aide casually asked him, "You want to go to Baghdad?"

With Bush safely back at his Crawford ranch on Friday, White House supporters seized on the U.S. Thanksgiving Day visit to Iraq (news - web sites) as a public-relations coup that could boost troop morale and Republican fund raising.

But the trip -- one of the most secretive by any U.S. president -- also highlighted how precarious security remains in the Iraqi capital, captured by U.S. forces in April.

Despite unprecedented precautions, the president slipped into Baghdad under cover of darkness on Thursday to minimize the risk of being targeted by surface-to-air missiles and was confined to the heavily guarded airport throughout his 2-1/2-hour stay.

"Obviously there continues to be a security problem in the triangle around Baghdad," Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites), said in Crawford.

One day after the president left Iraq, another high-profile visitor, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), toured Baghdad to meet with troops and top officials from the occupation administration and aid groups.

It was White House chief of staff Andrew Card who first proposed the surprise trip -- not the president.

"Andy (Card), as he often does, said (to Bush) almost in passing: 'Thanksgiving's coming up. Where do you want to go? You want to go to Baghdad?"' Rice recalled, and the planning got under way.

Seven months after his dramatic landing in a flight suit on the USS Abraham Lincoln with its "Mission Accomplished" banner, Bush conceded about the Iraq visit, "I was the biggest skeptic of all."

Instead of a flight suit, Bush wore a standard Army jacket to meet with the troops, and acknowledged he thought "all along" it might be too risky and that he "had a lot of questions" about security.

Bush aides considered scrapping the visit less than a week ago after a DHL cargo plane, landing at the same airport, was hit by a surface-to-air missile.

"The president had made clear that he was prepared to call this off at any time," Rice said, adding the DHL incident "made people go back and take a look at whether we thought the plane would be safe going in."

The Secret Service (news - web sites) was deeply involved in the planning from the start, although it expressed some initial reservations. The White House went to extraordinary lengths to keep the trip a secret, including outright deception.

"Everybody was concerned that it was a trip with some risk. ... It wasn't going to Cleveland, we knew that." Rice said.

'ONE-DAY WINNER'

More than 180 U.S. soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat operations over in May with his controversial visit to the aircraft carrier.

He has seen his popularity decline as Americans' concern over the operation has grown. Experts said the visit could boost Bush in the polls, but doubted it would last.

"Is this a moment that the RNC (Republican National Committee (news - web sites)) will try to use as a fund-raising moment? Yes. ... (But) it's a one-day winner. This is not a solution to anything," said Douglas Brinkley, director of the Eisenhower Center for American Studies at the University of New Orleans.

Dan Feldman, a National Security Council director under former President Bill Clinton (news - web sites), called the trip a "great PR stunt ... yet another in a long line of photo ops that don't say anything concrete about improving security and what our long-term plans are."

Rice denied the trip was politically motivated. "This was generated out of the president and the policy side," she said, but declined to say if political adviser Karl Rove or Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman were among the handful of aides who knew about the trip.

She said the administration had briefly considered a visit to Baghdad during the summer or tagged on to Bush's recent London trip.

Rice said the president was concerned about his own security as well as the possibility the visit would increase the risk to front-line troops.

Before giving the final green light, he convened a meeting with his top advisers.

"The (military) commanders still wanted this to go forward. And the president went around the room and just said, 'Do you still think this is the right thing to do?' And each of us thought it was the right thing to do," Rice said.

that guys a complete ass hole and I'd hit him in the face if I saw him. Not Bush, but the guy who wrote that article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilbull

that guys a complete ass hole and I'd hit him in the face if I saw him. Not Bush, but the guy who wrote that article.

---

OMG liberal journalist will always try to turn a good deed into a stunt. I realize he is a politician and the fact that this would get him votes and campaign money crossed his mind. He'd be stupid if it didn't. Inspite of that I think he is a decent guy who on his own thought this was a good boaster for the troops over the holidays

I like Bush, I support Bush, I support the american soldiers,

I was very embarrased when i found out that canada wouldnt help them or say they supported them when USA ask Canada for help.

That was awesome what Bush did.

If what Bush did doesn't hit home and make you swell up a little for all those troops fighting for us back home..you need to get checked. How great they must have felt when good ole' George strolls in saying "I was just looking for a warm meal"..knowing that the COC is WITH them and behind them 100% must've felt incredible. I bet everyone of those troops wants to get out there and get this war over with extremely bad now, its like a **** good pep talk before a homecoming game except multiplied by 1,000. The whole thing was awesome..

Happy Thanksgiving..

Peace

Farmer

Well, it's certainly nice of bush to go there and encourage the troops, and I don't want to belittle that... it is commendable...

BUT

As far as I am concerned ***ALL*** politicians (regardless of country) who have an ounce of responsability in sending soldiers in harms way (for whatever reason) should be obligated to go there themselves. Just like in the old days when the king went out to war with his troops.

I have a very hard time accepting that the people who decide to put your and my friends and relatives in harms way are in safe cushy offices far far away far from the war.

I may not be a fan of bush as a person or a politician, but at least he gets a thumbs up from me for going to Irak as he did.

Red

youd never catch Clinton there .. maybe in mexico .. but not there

OUTSTANDING!!! I watched it on TV yesterday and was amazed at what was going on...

and cycleon said it... NEVER has another president gone into active war scences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigol'legs

OUTSTANDING!!! I watched it on TV yesterday and was amazed at what was going on...

and cycleon said it... NEVER has another president gone into active war scences.

---

You watch TV with all the whoring you do :scratch: Thumbs up for Bush on that one!!!

yeah... he did an awesome job... sucks that a lot of people back home are still protesting the war... think about how those soliders feel... the people back home aren't even supporting them.... no bueno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Ketchup

Well, it's certainly nice of bush to go there and encourage the troops, and I don't want to belittle that... it is commendable...

BUT

As far as I am concerned ***ALL*** politicians (regardless of country) who have an ounce of responsability in sending soldiers in harms way (for whatever reason) should be obligated to go there themselves. Just like in the old days when the king went out to war with his troops.
Red

---

While I share the sentiment, the realities of todays warfare make that pretty infeasable - back then it would have been a lot tougher to get to the king or even the general simply because you would have had to cut your way through - today, a lucky shot with a rpg could so the trick - and the fact is THAT would be a true catastrophe for not only the US, but Can and the whole world - financial markets would colapse, especially the bond market, and the ramifications would be rather dire, much more so than the limited impact of Iraq -

the truth is, that what much of the world does has only limited effect on the daily lives of most americans while what the US does has substantial effect on the daily lives of quite a few people in the world

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peam

yeah... he did an awesome job... sucks that a lot of people back home are still protesting the war... think about how those soliders feel... the people back home aren't even supporting them.... no bueno.

---

You might find people are protesting against an unjust war, whilst supporting your brave troops. Its not Vietnam just yet.

Oh yeah, and visiting Baghdad was a major media coup, gotta give him that. Brave ?, well I doubt AF1 went storming in without a **** strong escort.

3 cheers for BUSH!!! I love the guy!

I know someone in Iraq... I talk to him often... he told me gideon(sp?) from MTV was there yeserday and him and a few other soldiers were making fun of him and stuff because they thought he was being an A** H***. It was a pretty funny story, alot of the stories he tells me are funny, but anyway the weird thing is he carries on as normal as possible over there, he still lifts weights all the time and stuff, it's weird. I think it's cool what Bush did but I have to say that tomorrow they wont even be thinking about that and it will be back to business and just another day. Thats the feeling I get, something like a visit from BUSH becomes somewhat insignificant and the little things that used to be normal bece the bigger deals.

Yah, thumbsup for Bush making the trip out there.
Something tells me, though, that if Hillary Clinton hadn't already been doing the same thing in Afghanistan, he might have stayed in Texas for the day. I don't think he wanted to be one-upped by her, of all people.

Tock - you just coudn't complement Bush without the stab at him in the same sentence could you? just wouldnt have felt right for you :lol: because we both know that the carefully planned, top secret Bush visit was timed primarily to upstage Hillarys visits, that vast right wing conspiracy at work again out to get her :wg:

I know you are hating it about Bush but - your gal hillary did do a smart and good thing and I give her props for doing what she did as well - calling for more troops no less (and I agree with her on that). But you notice she has nooooo intention of getting trounced by Bush in 2004. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CYCLEON

Tock - you just coudn't complement Bush without the stab at him in the same sentence could you? just wouldnt have felt right for you :lol: because we both know that the carefully planned, top secret Bush visit was timed primarily to upstage Hillarys visits, that vast right wing conspiracy at work again out to get her :wg:

:D

---

=================


I dunno about a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get her, but I do beleive Karl Rove is a smart enough political handler not to let a good opportunity pass by when he sees one.

But back on Bush . . . I really don't see what anyone sees in him that's so special . . . maybe it's just that he's not a Democrat, and that's good enough for them, sorta like the conservative Republicans in California accepting Ahnold S. for Governor--you know that if he had run as a Democrat, they'd be the first ones out denoucing him for lack of morals and blasting him for being a corrosive influence on the world of AS users, etc, etc. Folks in either party seem to be willing to overlook a candidate's major flaws so long as he belongs to their own party . . . bet your boots that if Clinton had been Republican, they wouldn't have burped so much as a whisper over that wench he was playing with . . .
It's just politics. Stupid, silly, and most people get caught up in it, and it taints our judgement. Partisanship is what it's called, and while a little is ok (I guess), more than a little tends to inflame honest discussion, and I for one am getting sick of it.

Well, anyway, back to Bush . . . yah, back when he was Governor, he didn't really do much. Texas is a state where back in the 1870's, most of the power and influence was stripped and sent to the 4 other major Texas offices. In fact, the Texas Lt. Governor has a hellavalot more influence on moving legislation through the whole process . . . all the Gov. does is sign it when it's done. Oh, the other thing the Gov does is appoint people to various commissions around the state, like the Texas Cosmetology Commission, the Texas Board of Pardons and Appeals, stuff like that. And after that, he's free to go ride on his ranch or take helicopter rides over disaster areas, and that's about it.
So . . . Bush didn't do much as Governor, certainly didn't push for cleaner air (Houston and Dallas and El Paso air sucks majorly), and certainly didn't push for any other innovations. He picked some school administrator from Houston, said he did amazing things lifting the testing scores of high school kids over the years, and it turns out that the reason the scores increased was because they monkeyed around with the data and finally found a way to present it that looked good. In truth, things down there are as good as they ever were . . . To reward this guy's efforts, Bush made him some sort of Education Grand Poobah. Pretty sad.

And then he moves to Washington, gets all excited, says Iraq has WMD and he has proof, starts an unnecessary war (unilaterally, of course), and the whole world hates the US even more, Bush asks for help from the UN while giving 'em the finger, and meanwhile, arab terrorists become a much bigger problem than they were before.
During this time, the US goes from having a budget surplus to the largest budget deficits in the history of the planet, and the national debt skyrockets higher than ever.

You see, this is my perception of George W. Bush. Did nothing as Texas governor, started a needless war. Listens attentively to his political handler, Karl Rove, and as a result, hasn't vetoed a single bill out of congress. No other president has that record.
Seems to me that George W Bush is owned and operated by somebody somewhere for his/her/their own purposes, and GW Bush hasn't got what it takes to be a great president for the average Joe Schmoe citizen. So long as he keeps looking out for big bidness, well, US jobs will keep moving overseas, the military will keep bossing other countries around, and I'll keep writing crap like this . . . so you see, things are even more desperate than you suspected . . .

Anyway, to answer you original question, no, I couldn't resist the urge to stab away. Comes from doing too much tricep work, I guess. Something tells me, though, that Bush probably wouldn't have got the idea if he hadn't seen Hillary do it first.

There, feel all better now? :D

And Clinton shouldnt be worried so much about Karl Rove as Rudy Guliani - THAT is her real possible waterloo - but fortunately for her, he will probably want govenor not senator or he will easily knock her out in 2006 and that means she is dead for 2008 - but I know that the Repubs are going to ask him to take one for the team to try to knock Hillary out.

Tock - you right about the part being too much partisinship over parties - I am all about conservative or liberal, no matter whose party (but reality is that unless you are a serious lefty you cant get anywhere in the Dem party)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tock

And then he moves to Washington, gets all excited, says Iraq has WMD and he has proof, starts an unnecessary war (unilaterally, of course), and the whole world hates the US even more, Bush asks for help from the UN while giving 'em the finger, and meanwhile, arab terrorists become a much bigger problem than they were before.
During this time, the US goes from having a budget surplus to the largest budget deficits in the history of the planet, and the national debt skyrockets higher than ever.

---

One little thing happened in there that most dem's want to forget about and not mention how well of a job that Bush did...Septemeber 11. Shut wallstreet down for 2 days, the economy suffered plenty from it. But, of course all of this is Bush's fault.

The funny thing is, our economy is starting to recover nicely, majority of the American people are still behind the Iraq war, no more attacks on the US homefront have been waged....pretty good place to live. Of course though, it has nothing to do with GW Bush in command. If anyone deserves a blowjob in the oval office I would say the GW does!

peace,

ttgb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig

If anyone deserves a blowjob in the oval office I would say the GW does!
peace,
ttgb

---

:lol:

QUOTE=CYCLEON]There, feel all better now?
-------

My god, I feel as good as an eight-minute orgasm after that rant . . . thank you very much; I'll remember you at Xmas . . .

-------
And Clinton shouldnt be worried so much about Karl Rove as Rudy Guliani - THAT is her real possible waterloo - but fortunately for her, he will probably want govenor not senator or he will easily knock her out in 2006 and that means she is dead for 2008 - but I know that the Repubs are going to ask him to take one for the team to try to knock Hillary out.
--------

As far as I'm concerned, Hillary is another politician that doesn't really deserve to be a senator where she is . . . Her main claim to fame is simply being married to a famous politician, and then she moved to New York just in time (and just barely) to make the filing requirements. IMHO, to represent a state full of voters, you really have to have had years of experience working with the citizens of that state. Hillary ain't got it. And if she doesn't go on to bigger and better political offices, I ain't gonna cry over it. Seems to me she's working from her own sense of "what the people need" instead of representing a composite of "what the people told her they want." But one way of the other, makes no difference to me 'cause I live in Texas, and she's in New York, and if that's the way the voters up there want to vote, that's their business. Hah.

----------
Tock - you right about the part being too much partisinship over parties - I am all about conservative or liberal, no matter whose party (but reality is that unless you are a serious lefty you cant get anywhere in the Dem party)
----------

What you say may be true in states like Massachusetts, but here in Texas, well, I dunno about that . . . we have some pretty conservative Democrats here in Texas . . . some of these Texas congressmen vote more for what the Republican leadership want than what the Democratic leadership wants . . . Ralph Hall, Chet Edwards, and Charlie Stenholm come to mind. Won't ever find anyone more in favor of the right to keep arms than old Charlie Stenholm.
One time I was on the Platform Committee at a Democratic Senatorial District Convention, and I nursed through a resolution saying something to the effect, "Resolved, that the Texas State Constution should be changed to allow atheists the right to hold public office." (Currently, Texans who do not beleive in a god cannot do so.) Well, to make a long story short, that resolution proved to be the most controversial of the bunch, and it barely squeaked past the best efforts of Democrat Conservatives to squash it. And much to my surprise, I discovered there are still plenty of Democrats here in Texas who don't think that gay people should be treated equally like everybody else . . . And there are still plenty who think kids should be required by law to recite the Lord's Prayer in school every day, even if they're Jewish or Moslem or whatever. Pretty pitiful, IMHO. But that's Texas . . . not last but pretty **** near it on lots of national lists of social acheivements.
. And the converse of what you say is true . . . in lots of states, if you're not a conservative Republican, you won't get too far in that party. In some states (and maybe this happened at the National Republican Convention, I don't remember) the higher leadership of the party required each and every Republican candidate and functionary to sign a paper saying he or she agreed with the party's position on abortion, gay rights, and some other stuff. If they didn't sign, they were kicked out of the party. Now, that strikes me as Politics from the Top-Down, sorta like Soviet Union politics, where the big boss decided what was what and you went along or else. No room for discussion, negotiation, and certainly no gray areas. Black and White, all of it. Centrialized opinion, centralized politics. Take it or leave it. . . . which is fine, no one is required to put up with that nonsense, there's always the Democratic party where that crap doesn't happen, and where everyone assumes it's their obligation to find something to argue about, however small.

But what's really been getting my panties tied up in a wad lately is this stupid War on Drugs. It's been going on since the McKinley Administration, they've plonked countless billions of $$$ on it, and it's not had any effect at all, other than quadruple the size of the prison system and screwed up lots of people's lives. It was supposed to keep drugs away from little kids . . . but according to articles in the local (Dallas) paper, lots of grade school kids smoke grass all the time, and some do even worse stuff. So, the War on Drugs is ineffective on that . . . It was supposed to catch the guys running the drug operations. Hah. There's so much $$$ to be made that nowaday, terrorist organizations are making big $$$ in the drug trade. Not good.
. Anyway, IMHO, any politician, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, or whatever, that supports the current system of financing terrorist organizations and organized crime syndicates doesn't deserve to be elected. All this stuff can be better controlled through federally licensed outlets, like sports physicians for AS and liquor store-like shops for grass and softer drugs.
. Now you tell me if this is a Liberal idea, a Conservative idea, or an idea that just makes plain common sense. It's hardly a new idea, they've been doing it in some European countries with success for years. So I say XXXX the war on drugs, XXXX the politicians, XXXX whatever stands in our way, and de-criminalize this stuff so we don't risk going to jail when we honestly answer the question by our clergymen: "Wow, gettin big! You on 'roids?"
. Yes indeed, vote for Texas Tock to get rid of Political Crock! A vote for me is a vote for personal freedom and against terrorism and Mafia profiteering . . .

Hah . . . if I can write this stuff when sober, I wonder what I'd come up with when under the influence? Too bad I don't like booze or pot or stuff . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig

One little thing happened in there that most dem's want to forget about and not mention how well of a job that Bush did...Septemeber 11. Shut wallstreet down for 2 days, the economy suffered plenty from it. But, of course all of this is Bush's fault.

---

=====================


Actually, the governing principle regarding disasters is that it's the fault of whoever happens to be on the job at the time. Same principle applies for unexpected windfalls; whoever's on the job gets to claim it was all his idea.

So, when the 1920's Republican policy of Laissez-Faire came back to haunt 'em in 1929, the Democrats, of course, blamed the Republicans, and the general public agreed. 1932 rolled around with FDR in office, and he ended up trying the ideas the Republicans started, and when they worked, the public gave the Democrats the credit (and why not--they did the actual economic rebuilding, worked through the 1936 recession, and onward through the war).
When the Arabs cut oil exports to the US during Jimmy Carter's administration (1979), the Republicans, of course, blamed Carter for the subsequent inflation as energy prices doubled and tripled. Ronald Reagan got lots of mileage out of the inflation mess all through the 1980's. Fine. Clinton inherited nasty national budget deficits, and a several trillion $$$ national debt. After a few years, the annual budget defict turned into a budget surplus, and the national debt got whittled down to reasonable size, and a few more years of his policies would have elliminated it completely. Instead, we got GW Bush, a war, nasty annual budget deficits, and a national debt biggier than ever. That's his responsibility.
. And if y'all will recall, the last few days of Clinton's administration saw ol' Bill frantically trying to get the Palestinians and the Israelis to work things out at the peace table. When his time ran out, Bush adopted a laissez-faire attitude toward the troubles over there, and refused to get involved. It seems to me that if Bush had gotten involved over there, and pressured Israel to back off its unrealistic demands (like building settlements on Palestinian land, which the UN has also ruled illegal, BTW) and gotten some progress toward Justice for the aggrevied parties, then quite possibly the terrorists would not have subsequently attacked the world trade center . . . but that's just my guess . . .
Anyway, Bush is involved now, and without the blessing of the UN (which is dumb) and it looks like his policy is influenced by fundamentalist christian interpretation of the Bible . . . and all I can is, God help us all . . .

Enough of this crap . . .

Oh, btw, someone did a satirical song about GW Bush . . . see
http://www.twistedtunes.com/show/vault/alpha.asp?Var=G&
3rd one down the page. Pretty cool . . . they have lots of other good stuff too on a bunch of topics . . .
--Tock

Photo op - nothing more. I'm sure we'll see this stunt relived again and again the closer we get to the 04 election.

Peace.Matty.

same thing Billary did too...nothing different. You are right...we'll see lots more of it.

peace,

ttgb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tryingtogetbig

One little thing happened in there that most dem's want to forget about and not mention how well of a job that Bush did...Septemeber 11. Shut wallstreet down for 2 days, the economy suffered plenty from it. But, of course all of this is Bush's fault.

The funny thing is, our economy is starting to recover nicely, majority of the American people are still behind the Iraq war, no more attacks on the US homefront have been waged....pretty good place to live. Of course though, it has nothing to do with GW Bush in command. If anyone deserves a blowjob in the oval office I would say the GW does!

peace,

ttgb

---

Our economy is doing great right now. Stockmarket is up, Nasdaq, all manufacturing. He should get a pat on the back. Not criticism. But he can't do anything right in the eyes of dems.

liberal journalist make me wanna f'ing puke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redrock

Our economy is doing great right now. Stockmarket is up, Nasdaq, all manufacturing. He should get a pat on the back. Not criticism. But he can't do anything right in the eyes of dems.

---

=================


Democrats are about as likely to complement Bush on the recent uptick in the stock market as Republicans were to complement Clinton on the big boom back in the late 90's. Yah, in the eyes of 'Publicans, Clinton couldn't do anything right either. Geez, they pursued an impeachment all over his philandering with a fatass broad. IMHO, that's not the sort of thing to get the country in a crisis over . . .

Politics relies on sound-bytes and TV images and advertising. Both parties pay big bucks to present an "image," and that's all we get to see. Not the whole picture, just a XXXxxxx image. Not a thorough hour-long analysis of the history, development, and various proposed solutions of problems, just a quick "He (Bush) screwed up every business he ever got involved in, he can't fix the US economy!" or "If he (Clinton) doesn't know what "is" is, what the hell is he doing running the country?"

What I really really really hate to see is otherwise intelligent people pick up these soundbytes and proudly repeat 'em as if they gave birth to a pearl of wisdom every time their lips moved. All it shows is that another American mind has yielded to the marketing bullxxxx of a political party, and another brain is unavailable to work on the country's troubles. Hah. That's what I really really really hate to see . . .

Buy their bull****, live in their bull****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Ketchup

Well, it's certainly nice of bush to go there and encourage the troops, and I don't want to belittle that... it is commendable...

BUT

As far as I am concerned ***ALL*** politicians (regardless of country) who have an ounce of responsability in sending soldiers in harms way (for whatever reason) should be obligated to go there themselves. Just like in the old days when the king went out to war with his troops.

I have a very hard time accepting that the people who decide to put your and my friends and relatives in harms way are in safe cushy offices far far away far from the war.

I may not be a fan of bush as a person or a politician, but at least he gets a thumbs up from me for going to Irak as he did.

Red

---

the other thing a pres. has to keep in mind is that in order to finish what he started and to run the rest of the things that a president runs, he has to keep himself alive. So I wouldn't have necessarily wanted the pres himself feeding belts of 7.62 into my m-60 and ducking bullets next to me...I still admire this man more than any commander in cheif we've had in my lifetime. He's been a great President and has earned my respect.

By the way...it's good to be back and see AR still going strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PurePower

liberal journalist make me wanna f'ing puke

---

semper fi, brother....couldn't agree more