Responses to the Thanksgiving Trip by Bush

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Moral sucks. We are in danger of loosing this war all thanks to his sh1tty policy and implementation. He had no choice. This simple minded geusture should stave off some defections for awile. But the troops keep being killed bush will loose.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Moral sucks. We are in danger of loosing this war all thanks to his sh1tty policy and implementation. He had no choice. This simple minded geusture should stave off some defections for awile. But the troops keep being killed bush will loose.
Wow what a whopper.

LOL.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.

This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.

This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?

CkG
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.

This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?

CkG
Duh.


This is a sneak preview of Dubya's 2004 campaign. He will exploit Iraq and 9-11.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.

This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?

CkG
Duh.


This is a sneak preview of Dubya's 2004 campaign. He will exploit Iraq and 9-11.
And that has to do with what these people said...why?

But since you seem to think that Bush is exploiting it - I think you need to look at the other side as far as exploitation too. Iraq seems to be the main thing they have all been yapping about...but yeah - I guess that isn't exploitation;)
Everything is a conspiracy with some people


CkG
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir
There is a new law. All political advertisements must be credited.

This sneak preview of Cheney/Bush 2004 authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.
That's real nice and all Ldir, but did you have something to say?

CkG
Duh.


This is a sneak preview of Dubya's 2004 campaign. He will exploit Iraq and 9-11.
And that has to do with what these people said...why?

But since you seem to think that Bush is exploiting it - I think you need to look at the other side as far as exploitation too. Iraq seems to be the main thing they have all been yapping about...but yeah - I guess that isn't exploitation;)
Everything is a conspiracy with some people


CkG
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir

That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
You failed to answer the question.

CkG
I already answered your question. You failed to respond to my answer. I will not play your stupid game.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Ldir

That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.
You failed to answer the question.

CkG
I already answered your question. You failed to respond to my answer. I will not play your stupid game.
:p No - you didn't answer my question. To refresh your memory here it is.

"And that has to do with what these people said...why?"

CkG
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.

ahh the ever present "well, that is different"

well it is not, then president bill clinton had this to sayafter he attacked iraq:


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

of course lobbing a few missiles did not get the job done. it takes a republican to finish what a democrat fails to.




 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.

ahh the ever present "well, that is different"

well it is not, then president bill clinton had this to sayafter he attacked iraq:


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

(BAA) of course lobbing a few missiles did not get the job done. (BAA) it takes a republican to finish what a democrat fails to. (BAA)

(This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America. Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.)
BAA revisionist history at work. You forgot about Bush the First. He had forces on the ground but did not finish the job.

The Iraq job is still not finished. That will take a Democrat willing to work with the UN. The only job Dubya finished is bankrupting the treasury. That was started by Reagan.


 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Most of the Arab World and the Muslin world population see it as as publicity stunt.

Washington Post Article ( 2 pages here)
Just sign into the registry to read it - it's painless.

Some of the 'Supportive Coalition' isn't impressed either.

This has had 5 days to sink in (The Visit) and the initial 'Shock & Awe' bump is fading away.

In retrospect it looks rather shallow, as the safety was well established prior to landing.
I still congradulate him for going there, but question his sincerity.
If it turns into Posters and TV adds for 2004 - that will show his true colors.

When Johnson visited Cam Rahn Bay AB in 'October of 66, he was in and gone before anyone
knew - except for the select few he met with. He kept it low key.

Cam Rahn Bay AB was the most secure Military Complex that we had in Viet Nam for the
duration of the war there. It wasn't even hit until September of '67 - when sappers got on base
and satchel bombed the Hospital complex in the early morning hours ( 2 A.M. - 3 A.M.) as
rockets were being fired in from Na Trang in the north.
 

villager

Senior member
Oct 17, 2002
373
0
0
I got no problem with Bush going but I wonder what the plans were in March. A triumphant procession out of Gladiator down the streets of Baghdad. Rose pedals thrown in his path. Instead a secret trip, landing under cover of darkness, total new black out and back in the air in 2 hours. I think the way Bush went in tell all you need to know about how well Bush knew what he was doing in Iraq.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,693
376
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dudleydocker
Let the whining begin....:disgust:
Think of the whining that would have happened if he had not gone to iraq.
how many U.S. Presidents have visited a country we were at war with while the country was this unstable?

 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Ldir
That is different. The other side did not attack Iraq. Shrubby did.

ahh the ever present "well, that is different"

well it is not, then president bill clinton had this to sayafter he attacked iraq:


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

(BAA) of course lobbing a few missiles did not get the job done. (BAA) it takes a republican to finish what a democrat fails to. (BAA)

(This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America. Pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980.)
BAA revisionist history at work. You forgot about Bush the First. He had forces on the ground but did not finish the job.

The Iraq job is still not finished. That will take a Democrat willing to work with the UN. The only job Dubya finished is bankrupting the treasury. That was started by Reagan.
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.

would that be the same UN that did not finish the job in 91? the same UN that cannot enforce it's own resolutions? ROFL!!! what spaceship did you fall out of?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.

would that be the same UN that did not finish the job in 91? the same UN that cannot enforce it's own resolutions? ROFL!!! what spaceship did you fall out of?
Since when do we give two craps what the U.N. thinks? If Bush 2 is right for invading Iraq, then Bush 1 was wrong for stopping. Based on all the usual reasons I hear around here constantly.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
ROFL!!! "revisionist history!!" bush1 did not arbitrailly say "okay, let's stop here" the UN did and if had kept going all the same buffoons saying the same thing you just did would have screamed bloody murder with teh same accusations you do at bush2.

would that be the same UN that did not finish the job in 91? the same UN that cannot enforce it's own resolutions? ROFL!!! what spaceship did you fall out of?
Since when do we give two craps what the U.N. thinks? If Bush 2 is right for invading Iraq, then Bush 1 was wrong for stopping. Based on all the usual reasons I hear around here constantly.

personally, i thought we should have told the UN to get real and gone on in. most people in the military with me at the time agreed, we were pretty pissed about that. the UN has always been pretty much useless except as a charity organization(and not real great at that) without the US to give them backbone.

in keeping with that same line of reasoning, why do people who now say we should not have gone this time "without UN support", ask why we did not then turn around and gripe about us going in now without UN support? if they think it was the right thing to do then, why gripe now? late is better than never.

most of the european objections boil down to money, the most vehement objectors were owed the most money by saddam, now they will not get it and they are pissed. maybe if france had not put billions into saddam they could afford air conditioning for thier elderly.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Funny how he'll fly halfway across the world for a political stunt but won't be seen at a soldier's funeral back home.
 

shurato

Platinum Member
Sep 24, 2000
2,398
0
76
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Funny how he'll fly halfway across the world for a political stunt but won't be seen at a soldier's funeral back home.
Well in all fairness, i don't think Bush would have much time for that seeing as he'd have to attend a dozen funerals or so every week....so I think spending 2-3 hours with the troops in Baghdad is a superterrific alternative! I'm all for morale boost for our troops over there. Whether or not they belong there right now is a seperate issue. They are there and we need to deal with it and support them. However, I'm getting pretty fvckin tired of this common scenario we see every week...

A buncha soldiers or civilians die.
Administration says that it will not deter us from our goal and we are in it for the long haul yadda yadda yadda.

Of course I wouldn't expect them to say the otherwise but it's becoming like a broken record. Are we as Americans becoming desensitized now to the issue of our troops and allies dying every other day? How long can this go on?
How many 3 hour trips can the president make? What kind of morale boost is it really when the following week more Americans are killed....it won't last past Thanksgiving weekend.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS