Bush visits Baghdad for thanksgiving.
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
I jumped up, and did a bit of a dance.Sabastian said:
Saw it on cnn about 45 minutes ago. Hes got some big cahonas(sp?). Apparently Mrs Bush didnt even know. Ontop of that the secret service was not in on it either.later,
epic
epicstruggle said:I jumped up, and did a bit of a dance.Sabastian said:
later,
epic
Yeah, I want to see the footage that CNN supposedly has of the occasion. Bush is sure playing a smart PR game that is a fairly impressive visit even if it were not thanksgiving.
Sxotty said:
Well Sxotty, the media was not aware of it at all. It really does not matter to me if the secret service was privy to the idea or not personally but I would suggest to you that it is well within the realm of reason. It could be that Bush himself proposed the idea and in a matter of hours all was arranged for the event. He is maverick enough to do just such a thing from what I can tell. However, he might have taken the advice from some wily PR guy spur of the moment and agreed to it. Who knows? Anyhow from the footage I saw I do not think the event could have been more charming for Bush in terms of PR. Really a great show and a fairly impressive speech to boot.
Well, when you think about it, the shorter the time, the less people have a chance to get there to get him...
I mean, if he had announced his visit last month, i'm sure there would have been *loads* of not-so-friendly foes out there right in Baghdad to make sure he wouldn't leave the country alive. What better chance for a terrorist...
This way, no one knew, no one was prepared. Much safer if you ask me....
I mean, if he had announced his visit last month, i'm sure there would have been *loads* of not-so-friendly foes out there right in Baghdad to make sure he wouldn't leave the country alive. What better chance for a terrorist...
This way, no one knew, no one was prepared. Much safer if you ask me....
I am not saying it was a bad idea, or even a bad thing to do.
I was simply saying that the secret service did know about it in advance, and that I am sure someone was scoping things out. I realise that they wanted it secret, and that very few people were told in advance. I hope that somehow it is actually helpful though, as in perhaps more iraqi's will think the US wants things to be better there (I dont care if it is helpful to him in the polls or not).
I was simply saying that the secret service did know about it in advance, and that I am sure someone was scoping things out. I realise that they wanted it secret, and that very few people were told in advance. I hope that somehow it is actually helpful though, as in perhaps more iraqi's will think the US wants things to be better there (I dont care if it is helpful to him in the polls or not).
Got to admit that was a good PR move. And the funny thing is I believe the president is the type of guy that would do this because HE believes it is the right thing to do. Another thing the president has done that I bet piss's off the liberals. He is going to win another election.
Well, somebody had to combat Hillary...
After hearing more on it. It seems like a very few people within the secret service knew of this. If you look at the footage, you wont see the usual s.s. around the pres. I guess he thought he would be safe with 600+ US souldiers.Sxotty said:
later,
epic
diarrhea_splatter
Banned
Too bad he couldn't have been assassinated by an Iraqi or even better, an American soldier.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Bush's visit was certainly not that much of a surprise.
After all, Bush couldn't be upstaged by Hillary's visit to the troops in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving now could he?
Then Bush becomes like Kennedy. A horrible pResident somehow vindicated in death. I would have much preferred Bush to have been booed live on TV, but as always, Spindoctor Rove probably took precautions. Probably created 'First Amendment Zones', far, far away from the cameras like they always do for a Bush occasion. These zones weren't the first time they were used either:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/news_pf/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml
After all, Bush couldn't be upstaged by Hillary's visit to the troops in Afghanistan for Thanksgiving now could he?
Then Bush becomes like Kennedy. A horrible pResident somehow vindicated in death. I would have much preferred Bush to have been booed live on TV, but as always, Spindoctor Rove probably took precautions. Probably created 'First Amendment Zones', far, far away from the cameras like they always do for a Bush occasion. These zones weren't the first time they were used either:
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/news_pf/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml
If idiots would not interrupt speeches, then these "free speech zones" wouldn't be required. It only takes a few to with loud voices to overpower the many who are listening.
Or is free speech only allowed for those who agree with you?
Or is free speech only allowed for those who agree with you?
Willmeister
Newcomer
Fine question, and it's rather obvious where I stand on this position. Should ask Bush's handlers the same question.
People disagreeing with you is part of the job description, and if Bush can't handle the sights and sounds of people who vocally disagree with him, he's obviously unfit for the job as the leader of 'democracy'. And if Bush cannot show these people for the 'idiots' as you confidently say they are, do you feel comfortable having a nimrod like Bush with his itchy finger on the Button? These 'First Amendment Zones', more specifically, the barring of dissidents from areas, is an obvious infringement on the right to free association, or is that right only for liberated Iraqis now?
If they could "voice their opposition" by not spoiling it for the rest of the people, I'd be all for letting them do it.
However, these goons seem intent on disrupting anything that disagrees with them such that only their opinion is one that matters.
How would you like the freepers showing up at some speech by <insert your beloved speaker> and ruining the speech.
How long would that take to come to blows?
However, these goons seem intent on disrupting anything that disagrees with them such that only their opinion is one that matters.
How would you like the freepers showing up at some speech by <insert your beloved speaker> and ruining the speech.
How long would that take to come to blows?
Willmeister
Newcomer
No, you wouldn't. You'd just pigeonhole any opposition as Bush for a few bad apples and use it as a quasi-plausible excuse to deny the rights of everyone in the entire group, which is exactly what Rove and his office does. They've managed to convince people that it is okay to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Would you want to be catergorized as a freeper when inappropriate and lose your right to association because of them? It's not alright if others lose their rights, but trust me, you'd be singing a much different tune if it ever happened to you.
Besides, if a Democrat gets into the Oval Office and pulled a stunt like this, the media would be all over them like Robert Downey Jr. on a stack of cocaine. If that comparison is inaccurate, the media would be all over a Democratic President faster than Michael Jackson on a twelve-year old. Oh, so very EVIL.
Oh yes I would. Shall we go back and forth as you tell me how I think, and what I feel?Willmeister said:
Look: I'm all for dissenting opinion and free speech. But if "expressing" that dissenting opinion means disrupting events, then it isn't "free speech" in my book, but anti-free speech. And the same goes for freepers.
who ever d_s is, he/she is very amusing.ByteMe said:diarrhea_splatter said:Too bad he couldn't have been assassinated by an Iraqi or even better, an American soldier.
Holy cow, and some people think I am full of shit.
later,
epic
Similar threads
