BREAKING NEWS: Bush visits Iraq! - Page 5

Winston · November 29, 2003, 22:54

No.

Sava · November 29, 2003, 22:55

click on the link bub...

unless of course you are saying the washington post is wrong...

Winston · November 29, 2003, 22:57

I am.

I also put it to you that you're a bit silly to actually believe it was 5 in the morning...

Sava · November 29, 2003, 22:58

well you are wrong... it happened at 5:30 AM Baghdad time... just in time for everyone at home on Thanksgiving to enjoy that propaganda piece... good work Karl Rove and friends...

Winston · November 29, 2003, 23:06

He-he.

Try taking a peek at the first post of this thread, and the time it was posted.

Not everything in the papers is true, even if it happens to fit nicely into one's agenda.

DanS · November 29, 2003, 23:08

American politics is much less shrill now than it was during the period of party-run newspapers, for instance. It only seems more partisan because of the talk radio and cable news shows. But remember that few people really watch or listen to these shows, even though it might seem like a lot do.

As for whether this was just an election ploy, that's not a really important question. He was letting the troops and nation know that he is politically invested in what the troops are doing. I'm sure it's tough to be deployed in Iraq, sometimes having the feeling that the deployment isn't getting much attention from the White House, and that all of the politicians who can get things done are running from the situation. This was very effective in tying Bush to the success of the occupation and quashing any such thinking.

Sava · November 29, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston
Try taking a peek at the first post of this thread, and the time it was posted.

how is that relevant?

Quote:

Not everything in the papers is true, even if it happens to fit nicely into one's agenda.

if you think the Washington Post is wrong, then find a news source to refute it... aw wait a minute, you can't... BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT

nice try tho...

here's another source confirming the AM arrival time in Baghdad

http://www.counterpunch.com/madsen11282003.html

Quote:

Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport, under cover of darkness, at 5:20 AM Baghdad time. Bush was on the ground for two and a half hours, his plane departing Baghdad at around 7:50 AM.

Winston · November 29, 2003, 23:16

Fine Sava, believe your version of it if you must.

But I - and millions of others - actually saw the news posted on the Web, just minutes after the President took off from Baghdad early Thursday evening, local time.

Sava · November 29, 2003, 23:18

Quote:

Fine Sava, believe your version of it if you must.

I didn't write this "version" which happens to be true...

Quote:

But I - and millions of others - actually saw the news posted on the Web, just minutes after he took off from Baghdad early Thursday evening.

yeah... hook line and sinker... there's one born every minute

Winston · November 29, 2003, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

yeah... hook line and sinker... there's one born every minute

I agree completely.

DinoDoc · November 29, 2003, 23:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
AT 5 IN THE MORNING BAGHDAD TIME when Bush arrived...

No one but you seems to care.

Sava · November 29, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No one but you seems to care.

and that's precisely what's wrong with America... Ignorance and apathy...

DinoDoc · November 30, 2003, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
and that's precisely what's wrong with America... Ignorance and apathy...

Why are you calling the BBC a liar?

Sava · November 30, 2003, 00:05

DinoDoc · November 30, 2003, 00:12

Do a little legwork! You can not expect me to hand feed you everything like you were some sort of stupid child.

Sava · November 30, 2003, 00:21

but I am...

GePap · November 30, 2003, 12:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Huh? I've never heard president Bush say anything negative about any Democrat. When he argues about a bill, he does so on in a very traditional manner. He has objected to the Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees. But not in harsh terms.

So, where is this coming from?

An amdinistration Ned includes more than the president. This pres has precided over endless straight party lines votes, and when the Reps go to craft a bill, more and more they don;t even try to get democratic input and assume they will have the votes to ram things through. That is partysanship, not whether the pres says one thing or another. Add to that doing as many things as possible solely for political reasons, like the Steel Tarriffs.

DanS · November 30, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

This pres has precided over endless straight party lines votes

You want to blame the republicans for having good party discipline?

Quote:

and when the Reps go to craft a bill, more and more they don;t even try to get democratic input and assume they will have the votes to ram things through. That is partysanship, not whether the pres says one thing or another.

That's what majority parties do, if they can keep their people in line. What do you think the Dems did when they had both chambers of congress for decades at a time?

But there's the Senate, where the Dems can block anything they don't like. That is, if they have party discipline.

Don't blame the republicans for Dem failings...

Q Classic · November 30, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Don't blame the republicans for Dem failings...

i won't. but then i don't want to ****ing hear how republicans are a better party morally than the democrats.

if you're going to point out the flaws of your opponent, you do not engage in them yourself.

DanS · November 30, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

but then i don't want to ****ing hear how republicans are a better party morally than the democrats.

Strawman. Who was arguing that?

KrazyHorse · November 30, 2003, 15:24

Ned. Duh....

MrFun · November 30, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
American politics is much less shrill now than it was during the period of party-run newspapers, for instance. It only seems more partisan because of the talk radio and cable news shows. But remember that few people really watch or listen to these shows, even though it might seem like a lot do.

As for whether this was just an election ploy, that's not a really important question. He was letting the troops and nation know that he is politically invested in what the troops are doing. I'm sure it's tough to be deployed in Iraq, sometimes having the feeling that the deployment isn't getting much attention from the White House, and that all of the politicians who can get things done are running from the situation. This was very effective in tying Bush to the success of the occupation and quashing any such thinking.

I am not arguing that Bush does not care about the soldiers at all.

But even while he does care about the soldiers, this will still play wonderfully with his reelection campaign. No soldier and his/her family will dare vote for anyone but Bush now.

DanS · November 30, 2003, 15:50

To say that this ties into his reelection is about like saying the sky is blue. But you are incorrect in saying that this will necessarily play wonderfully at the ballot box. He is tying his political fortunes ever closer with the situation over there. This could be a good political move or a bad political move, depending on how it all turns out. But it can only be a good thing for our troops, since he's eating what he's cooking.

Dis · November 30, 2003, 17:54

I have no problem with him going to Iraq- despite all the lefties crying foul because he upstaged Hilary.

But his association with Fox News is wrong. It speaks of corruption at the highest level. Why wasn't CNN invited?

MrFun · November 30, 2003, 17:55

There was nothing wrong with Bush going to Iraq -- the soldiers and officers were very happy to see him there.

DinoDoc · November 30, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Why wasn't CNN invited?

Because CNN sent thier pool home.

Ned · November 30, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Ned. Duh....

Let me make it clear that I do not argue that "Democrats" have no morals. There are many Democrats who do not accept the doctrine of moral relativism. Lieberman, for example, goes out of his way to emphasize that he believes in "values."

I also agree with MtG and Vel on almost all issues even though they are Democrats and I am a Republican. This is because I am more of a Schwarzennegger Republican putting me near the center of the political spectrum, and MtG and Vel are patriotic, putting them near the center as well.

The people whom I have a problem with are the hard left who call themselves "liberals," and those even farther left who are Marxists in one flavor or another. These folks hate capitalism and hate America to my view.

As to partisanship, I call Bush bashing day in and day out partisanship. I only pointed out that Bush himself has not attacked any Democrat personally to my knowledge. So, on the issue of partisanship, there is one party that is clearly more partisan than the other at the presidential level.

KrazyHorse · November 30, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

This is because I am more of a Schwarzennegger Republican putting me near the center of the political spectrum

If you're near the centre of the political spectrum, then you've got troubles. MtG yes, Vel yes, hell, even SlowwHand yes...

Quote:

and MtG and Vel are patriotic, putting them near the center as well

Patriotic=centrist or rightist, treacherous=leftist? Hello Ann, have we met before?

Quote:

As to partisanship, I call Bush bashing day in and day out partisanship. I only pointed out that Bush himself has not attacked any Democrat personally to my knowledge. So, on the issue of partisanship, there is one party that is clearly more partisan than the other at the presidential level.

I seem to recall the Repubs attacking Clinton rather continuously. This is the nature of the game. When you're on top you make yourself look petty by attacking your opponents personally. When you're on the bottom you tear the guy on the top down as hard as you can...

Quote:

The people whom I have a problem with are the hard left who call themselves "liberals," and those even farther left who are Marxists in one flavor or another. These folks hate capitalism and hate America to my view

Why don't you let them tell you what they hate? I'm a socialist, and don't call myself a liberal. What makes you think that all the liberals out there are actually America-hating socialists in disguise? Talk about a paranoid delusion...

Bereta_Eder · November 30, 2003, 23:08

I think the governator should have gone.