quote:

---

where he climbed aboard Air Force One on the back stairs rather than the front.

---

quote:

---

Trogdor, you're too much of an easy target. Like shooting fish in a barel. Think what you will if it makes you happy.

---

quote:

---

It's ok to believe that humans, even politicians, can still be decent human beings who aren't always in need of a photo op... especially on a day like Thanksgiving.

---

Heh!

Yes, Bush has shown such care for everyone below the top 2%, I can see how you can come to that conclusion.

Though, y'know, if it wasn't meant as a PR coup, I sure wonder why it's being reported everywhere before Thanksgiving is even over. I bet it wasn't to give feed images to the public -- just like the USS Lincoln debacle, I'm sure Bush's photos were accidental.

As far as Hillary goes, sure, she likely did it to draw attention to Bush's neglect of Afghanistan, and to contrast herself with him. She is a politician. Though, based on their different actions (as opposed to where they took pictures) I'm far more inclined to believe that the Clintons care about general welfare for the bottom 98% than Bush does. But, of course, nobody doubts Bush's generosity with that top 2%. What a swell fellow.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
Two and a half hours.


And did you know that some of his own Secret Service attachment didn't know he was doing this? That he left the press that normally travels with him on Air Force One in Texas, completely surprised that he did this. That if there was anyone who found out he was going to Baghdad that we was going to turn the plane around and go back?

Don' t the soldiers deserve a visit from their commander in chief ?
 

---

Posted by Desu (Member # 5941) on :
 
Yeah, I guess that means I must be wrong.

So you think the only reason he flew over was to help boost the moral of six hundred soldiers?

quote:

---

"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"

---

quote:

---

I love the way he assumes the Iranian people see the Americans as liberators. If he is right, which he must be seeing as he's the president and all, then why didn’t he go out and serve thanksgiving dinner to a few starving Iranians?

---

quote:

---

That if there was anyone who found out he was going to Baghdad that we was going to turn the plane around and go back?

---

That was more a security reason than anything else, wasn't it?

Yes, I think the soldiers deserve a visit from the CIC. I don't even think it's a bad thing Bush visited. But that doesn't change the fact I think the primary motivation was publicity.

But c'mon he's the highest ranking politician in the country - publicity is part of his job. Photo ops like this one are vital to him.

It doesn't make Bush a bad person because he sort out a great oppurtunity (that's another, far longer, debate ). But I think it is naive to believe this visit was done solely, or even primarily out of concern for the troops, without the motivating factor of good publicity.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 

quote:

---

Cause he was in IRAQ?

Fish in a barrel indeed.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't make Bush a bad person because he sort out a great oppurtunity (that's another, far longer, debate ). But I think it is naive to believe this visit was done solely, or even primarily out of concern for the troops, without the motivating factor of good publicity.

---

Maybe so.

I guess I choose to look at the best in a guy than the worst.

**shrugs**
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I don't give a flying rat's ass if it was a photo op, this was a classy thing to do. And yes, the fact that it was on Thanksgiving makes it more special than it would have been this time next week or last week.

I got your back, Pat.
 

---

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
 
Photo op + good for the troops. Motivated primarily by publicity.

Special 'cos it was on thanksgiving, better news and more marketable because it was on thanksgiving.

That's all I have to say about the matter. I sort of agree with everyone. Guess I'm just a moderate.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
You da man Bob.
 

---

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
I don't know....I'm a self-professed Bush-hater/Deany-bopper....

I thought it was a classy thing to do. Doesn't mean I like his overall foreign or domestic policy, but I think in this situation he did the right thing.

But I really want to know how Black Fox feels.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Bob, thing is, I tend to define "classy" differently. "Classy" would imply Bush did something brave or noble out of the goodness of his heart, instead of just posing with a turkey and a soldier. "Classy" would imply Bush did the noble thing despite possibly negative consequences. "Classy" would imply that he wasn't just raping these soldiers' images so he could boost his publicity in the US.

Somehow, I have trouble believing Bush isn't there just to distract attention from the negative aspects of that slaughter -- which would be, yes, every other aspect of it. Though I'm sure bringing a turkey to Iraq wasn't meant to distract the public from the dying soldiers, the uncountable numbers of Iraqi corpses, the unbelievable cost of the war, the soon-to-be largest debt in the history of the world, the hatred and illwill that's sprung up across the world, the incredible corruption with Halliburton that's robbed the taxpayer of several times as much money as each should've paid for the rebuilding of Iraq, or Bush's lies which killed thousands upon thousands.

No. Like Trog said, Bush is "heroic." It brings tears to my eyes. What a brave, noble man.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
I'm not sure that 'Class' has ever been something you've been associated with, Lalo. Are you sure you should be defining it?



Can't even give the guy the benefit of the doubt, Eddie?

Edit to apologize in advance for the flame, because even though Eddie pisses me off with his inflammatory remarks, I still think he's a good guy at the core.

I think I need another hanky.

[ November 27, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I think this was a very clever move both politically and security wise. The person who came up with it should be congratulated. Everyone loves good surprises, and this was a lovely surprise. It showed that Bush wasn't so wussy as to not even attempt to get in Iraq. It solved most problems of security, as nobody knew about it in order to plan an attack. It raised morale among the troops and made a number of people around sit up and take notice.

Whether or not it was morally all there, this is what politics is all about, and this was very clever.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

Bush also met with members of Iraq's Governing Council.

---

This is a good thing. It gives legitimacy the Governing Council, it shows the Iraqi people that he is serious about Iraq and if it gives him a photo op, we'll just have to live with it. I hate Bush, but I think it is kind of cool that he took a risk to go over there and meet with the Council and serve dinner to the troops. And, I have to say, this is the kind of lying from the government that I can deal with.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 
Ah. A voice of reason.


 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
::spits soda on screen::

I don't think anyone has ever mistaken me for the voice of reason before.
 

---

Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Here's the thing. It was a great thing to do, and whether or not it was his own idea, he probably would have gone solely because he thought it was a good thing to do. I think that as far as that goes, he deserves kudos. I'd like to think that most other people in his position would feel the same.

HOWEVER, this is one of the most "handled" (as opposed to his predecessor, who was likely the most, uh, "fondled") presidents in US history. His press conferences are uncommon, and the questions are either scripted, or no follow-ups are allowed. He DID get ticked when an American journalist asked the French Prime Minister a question in French, after all. His press team has made it known that if you don't follow certain rules (such as not asking generally softball questions), you will not be given a press pass for future occassions.

Whether he wanted to or not, in all likelihood he only went to Iraq because his handlers gave him the okay. I say "in all likelihood" because this president has yet to show an example of when he went "off message." It's one of his 2 strengths, staying on-message, and being an innately likeable guy.

Now, we have plenty of poll numbers that show as many Americans dislike is foreign and/or domestic policy... Yet his own approval stays somewhat higher. The reason, I believe, is his high "likeability" poll numbers. People look at him, and just generally get a good feeling, no doubt in part because of his competent handling of things right after 9/11. It should be noted though, that he won the 2000 election largely because of this same likeability, despite widely-considered poorer showings in the debates. Basically, the 2000 race was a contest about focusing on a few sub-components of larger issues (and presenting largely semantic differences in the two alternatives) as well as general likeability.

Bush won.

What does this mean for todays gracious and decent appearance? Well, since the foreign/domestic issues are either largely out of his hands at this point, or so polarizing as no stand can be a net gain, you work to your strength: likeability. People will remember this, and when the polls open next November, they may not grasp the intricacies of his policies, or may somewhat disagree with him, but they'll think, "Well, he's been here for 4 years, and the country hasn't been wrecked (despite his opponent's claims), and he just seems like a good guy."

So todays situation showed Bush being earnest in his actions and words to the armed forces, I have little doubt of that. Yet it wouldn't have happened if his handlers didn't believe he'd get a re-election boost. Incidentally, the secrecy was certainly a security measure, but it also adds to the substance of the event. The media are amazed he that this plan got by them, and it slips into the reports as a general amazement. As I heard on one of the channels, had even a whiff of this leaked out, it never would have happened... In fact, it likely would have been officially denied, since that seems the standard response of the administration press team.

So to sum up: Bush did a good and decent thing, but to call it "heroic" is a bit of overstatement.

---
Way too much I know, but thinking about exactly how I feel about this made other things clearer to me.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
 
Good god, can you people get more deluded? Can you be so BLIND as to think that idiot ass of a man went out there out of the goodness of his heart? To do something OTHER than boost his image and make a stir off of the whole 'support our troops' mentality? That anyone who does something good for our soldiers is a good person? I'll tell you what he would have done if he was thinking of the soldiers.

HE WOULDN'T HAVE STARTED THE DAMN WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Trogdor, man, I like you most of the time, but in this...you're being a fool.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Gosh, Pat, thanks for showing me what class is all about.

Kayla, out of interest, how does a super-protected, super-secret flight to Iraq give Bush any kind of risk? Or how does the visit show Iraqis that, somehow, he's serious about them -- whatever that means?

Bush took a turkey to Iraq via the safest possible route known to man. There, he had pictures taken of himself to "prove" to the public that gosh, he's just an upstanding brave leader who, ha ha, hasn't screwed up the Middle East and endangered the physical, financial, and international security and influence of the United States. If Bush put on a helmet and went to the front lines, that could earn a nod. But we all know he'd never endanger his own life, and while delivering a turkey might have been awfully sweet had he paid for the turkey himself, paid for the flight himself, paid for the security himself, or didn't publicize it like the self-serving bastard he is -- it's not heroic, it's not classy, it's not sweet, and it's a damn shame that he can both send our fellow citizens to death and rape their images for his own publicity.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I agree that it is both a good thing, and a masterful political move.

I would also like to point out that every news service on the planet is carrying this bit of news, but that I had no idea Ms. Clinton was in Afghanistan.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Human -- Sorry to dissapoint you, bud.

Lalo -- I'm sorry, I fought tackiness with tackiness. That was wrong. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 

quote:

---

Past presidential trips to war zones include:
 1952: Dwight David Eisenhower, then president-elect, visited Korean battle fronts in December.
 1966 and 1967: President Lyndon Johnson made two wartime trips to Vietnam, visiting troops at the U.S. military command at Cam Ranh Bay.
 1969: President Richard Nixon visited troops at Dian about 12 miles south of what was then known as Saigon.
 1990: President George H.W. Bush visited U.S. troops at a desert outpost in Saudi Arabia on Thanksgiving Day, in the run-up to the Gulf War.
 1999: President Bill Clinton addressed Kosovar refugees and NATO military personnel in Macedonia, two weeks after end of NATO airstrikes to drive Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo. Five months later he addressed Albanians and shared a Thanksgiving dinner with U.S. troops in Kosovo.
 2003: President Bush pays a Thanksgiving Day visit to U.S. soldiers in a mess hall at Baghdad International Airport.

— Associated Press

---

So, none of these guys did a heroic thing?

[ November 27, 2003, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but the President always has photographers tagging along for just about any even, 99% of which don't make the news at all.

If he wanted to, Bush could have done it on an umimportant day and spend Thanksgiving with his parents, the fact that he chose this day is more proof in my opinion of his good intentions.

In the end, photo op or decent act, it accomplished both goals, a heart warming story and troops with more morale.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Ok, I read my own question and decided that the mere act of showing up in a war zone, visiting with troops is not heroic, because the real heroes are those out on the front lines fighting, risking their lives everyday.

And I also cannot deny the fact that altruisim is not the only reason why a president would do such a thing.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
See Human, this is where you and I differ. I don't believe Bush is particularly intelligent nor do I believe he is evil. I really think he's lead the country as best he can, doing the things he thinks are right. Even though, in my professional humble opinion, many of those decisions have been colossally stupid.
Morale has been extremely low lately. Can you think of a better way to increase morale than a visit from the president? Ok, considering you think he's the devil personified that may not be the best question.
So he took advantage of it to snap some pictures and improve his image, so what? Does it matter why good gets done so long as it gets done? Especially an action such as this. Who exactly are the losers? How is this hurting anyone?
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
I think most of us are unqualified to answer that, Pat. We either were born way too late to have a good sense of the situation at the time, or we simply don't have good enough memories, and apparently they weren't publicized as much.

Heck, did you know that NBC, at least, put out a "special breaking news report", interrupting their programming (granted it was a dog show), just to show 20 seconds of video, and say that Bush was in Iraq?

Did anyone else get comparable (for their times) coverage?

Of course, it's all moot. They all did a good thing. And heroism is second to that anyway.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I think it was a really decent thing to do, but I don't think it was heroic--he risked, while more than we normally allow a president to, very little.

I think I'd also see it as more sincere had he gotten there and back without the entire free world having gotten a slideshow of the visit.

Personally, I'd like it if he'd go back and give every one of the soldiers a morale boost. He's the reason they're there...he could at least thank more than 600 of them.

Sure, Clinton, Gore, or Dean would've done the same thing. Sure, it was a blatant media stunt. But if you take a minute to stand back and just look at it without any politics clouding the view, it was a nice, almost heartwarming, thing to do.

But if you see everything in a "#of votes gained per effort put forth" light, then I can see how one would be pissed.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
He was heroic only in a very minor way and that way is absolutely nothing compared to our soldiers. I think even Bush realizes and would readily admit to that.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
NFL -- Agreed.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Heroic would've been him flying Delta with a Presidential Seal and a target painted on the plane.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
That would've been stupid.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
So is trying to knock the gun out of the hands of a man holding you hostage at a liquor store.

But I'll bet you'd get called a hero.

[ November 27, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Psst... Frisco...

You're supposed to be annoying in the other thread.



[ November 28, 2003, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Pat ]
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Hey, I'm just trying to throw a little perspective on the term we're throwing around.

If you saw me today, you'd think I was heroic. I was designated babysitter for the kids at dinner. Unfortunately, my family is Mormon, so that meant I was entertaining no fewer than 16 children, ages 0-5.

I would much rather have been in a bulletproof plane to Iraq.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Wait Wait Wait....

You come from a Mormon family?
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
It was not "mildly" heroic. It was not heroic in any sense of the term. Heh. Jesus. Was it "heroic" to do the USS Lincoln photo-op?

And if not, why not? He's in as much danger here as he was visiting the Lincoln. Granted, I haven't yet heard him lie about this visit like he did about the Lincoln -- oh, it's so far out to sea I need to take a fighter jet -- but somehow I'm not sure his thus-far lack of lies makes him a hero.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Why does everyone always stop the conversation to confirm that?

Is it that hard to believe?







Okay, yeah. You got me there.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Cool. We have something in common. And I'm from Portland.

I bet my parents know your parents.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
I'm not from Portland. But I bet you could mention a street name or two that I'd recognize.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
I never said him landing on the USS Lincoln was heroic. Today's events and the aircraft carrier event are not comparable. The fact is he could have been killed in Iraq. Does that mean he's equally heroic as our soldiers fighting in Iraq? No. But that doesn't mean that he wasn't incredibly minorly, but heroic all the same today.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Well then, I was heroic today too. I survived evening-of-Thanksgiving highway traffic, a time when the chances of me dying or getting injured are substantially higher, due to the increase in drunk drivers on the road. Sure, minorly heroic, but still heroic.

Of course, regardless of how heroic our president was today, he certainly did a good thing.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I ate a lot of artery clogging pie and ice cream today! *flex* And then I took a nap! *pose* *flex*
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Actually, Bok, you were far more heroic today than Bush has been. I promise you, you were in far greater peril at any given point in your day than he was at any given point in his day.

And I don't know if he did "a good thing" today. After all, he sent them to war, and based on a lie and forged evidence at that. He's now abusing their image for his own campaign. Sure, he brought them a turkey, hurrah hurrah -- but who do you think he was doing a favor for, them or himself?
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Because Bok has thousands of angry Iraqis after him would kill him if they had the chance.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Bok, did you deflower another Iraqi princess? What did I tell you about that?
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Right, NFL. Would you like to place a bet on how close any of those evil hateful Iraqis got to Bush today?
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
People often get the terms "brave" and "stupid" mixed up.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
Hey man! I thought we were Iraqi's saviors. Why would they hate Bush.

(I'll shut-up now)
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 

quote:

---

And I don't know if he did "a good thing" today. After all, he sent them to war, and based on a lie and forged evidence at that. He's now abusing their image for his own campaign. Sure, he brought them a turkey, hurrah hurrah -- but who do you think he was doing a favor for, them or himself?

---

quote:

---

Bush forged the evidence about the Nigerian uranium

---

I was under the most distinct impression that was British intelligence.

quote:

---

Or didn't lie about his knowledge about weapons of mass destruction

---

If you recall, before the war almost everyone agreed that there were WMD in Iraq, the question was just if they could be used by Saddam. I admit that it's perfectly possible that some how Bush knew that there weren't WMDs and then lied to America about it, but what evidence supports this prior knowledge on his part? And heck, I'm not convinced that there aren't, or at least weren't WMDs in Iraq now. Or perhaps you are reffering to some other revelation recently that I'm not aware of. Which is perfectly possible since I haven't been really watching TV (read: the news ) in the last few months.

quote:

---

abusing the soldiers' well-earned reputation as a booster for his own, remarkably underdeserved approval rating

---

That seems like an opinion (as opposed to fact) to me. Not that I really like Bush, but that doesn't make the statment "underserved approval rating" a fact.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
sweet jebus, lalo.

I don't like Bush. I don't like his presidency. Most times, he's like a cute little puppet who turns out to do some crappy things.

But what he did today was something good. Attribute it to what you will as you keep your head stuffed in your cynicism, but MAN. Quit attacking Pat and anyone else who happens to be able to wipe their eyes of cynicism for a quick moment and think nice things about the human race...even of humans we ideologically disagree with.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
I thought the visit was very inappropriate for many reasons. The first is that Bush was so obviously loving every moment of his video footage with ridiculous exagerations. I have a friend who is serving as a navy doctor assigned to a marine unit in Baghdad and he said in an email to me today that it was almost disgusting to him as Bush stopped serving food and carrying the turkey as soon as the cameras turned off or pointed away. His attitude toward the troops was likewise: hamming it up with the grunts when the camera's eye was trained, and then indifferent and almost snide when it wasn't.

My second major reason is this one.
www.costofwar.com

combined with Bush's PR-motivated actions, this trip was a waste of considerable resources considering the cost incurred by the absolute secret conditions, the average normal cost of flying air force one under normal conditions anyway, and the added security measures probably taken on the ground for upwards of 30-40 miles surrounding the airport to make sure one no one was waiting with a SAM.

Basically, Bush's little PR jaunt was money that could have fed a few thousand more hungry families and children this Thanksgiving. What great Holiday spirit Mr. President.

[ November 28, 2003, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 

quote:

---

Hyperbole? Pat, are you, a journalist, seriously denying that Bush forged the evidence about the Nigerian uranium? Or didn't lie about his knowledge about weapons of mass destruction?

---

quote:

---

Or that he's not abusing the soldiers' well-earned reputation as a booster for his own, remarkably underdeserved approval rating?

---

quote:

---

Exactly what have I said that's hyperbole, Pat?

---

quote:

---

If anything, I'd say you're getting away with a stunning amount of denial and apologism.

---

What am I denying? In this thread I've openly admitted I was being naive about thinking Bush did this for purely altruistic reasons.
I changed my stance on that one.

I merely came out and commented on what I thought was a genuinely cool event today. I think you would have to be in denial to not at least give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his motives to go to Iraq and serve dinner to 600 soldiers. He's their commander in chief. This is what he's paid to do.

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. If it was any other president doing the same thing, I'd be singing their praises as well. Like I said before... I choose to look at the good people do instead of judging them on hyperbole, rumors and stuff you'd read on Hilary Clinton's website.


 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
To add to my post something I feel needs saying on Thanksgiving.

All this recent hype about the economy booming again is such a sham, and the news media knows it even as they say it. Its obvious when they say things like "the economy is doing well even though there is still high unemployment..." Um, excuse me, but recessions are judged mostly by unemployment. The economy is not recovering, in fact it is worse. The national unemployment average is well over 8 percent now, peaking with 10,8 and 11 percents in Washington, Oregon and California. I watched a saddening news bit tonight as our turkey was cooking about how there are more hungry families this year nation-wide then ever before, and donations to charity and food re-distributors has decreased dramatically to compound the problem. Its a sad year.

[ November 28, 2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
 
From a military point of view, what Bush did was acceptable and correct. It's a time-honored custom that troops in the field be served by their commanders during the holidays. It's expected of those in command to show respect for those who follow them. It is expected from the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines...to not do so would be a more grievous indictment of a commander by act of omission. It happens all the time, and there are always photos of this happening, no matter how low the level of the commander.

The President of the United States no longer does anything without the press noticing...it's the sad state of affairs in this media-centric age. Photos are taken of him doing everything, including sitting at his desk making phone calls. Why should any other day be any different?

Bush did what is expected of any commander, and especially of a Commander-in-Chief. No more, no less. That the news media decided to highlight coverage of it above all else is their decision. Would a photo-op *be* a photo-op without media indorsement? No. The pics wouldn't get out. It's a fact of life that what the American President does makes the news. That's neither good nor bad...it's expected, and both the President and the media know it. So should the public. Neither good nor bad. It just is.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
Im afraid that showing respect for one's commander does not mean not passing judgment on atrocious behavior such as that my friend documented. It's a sad state of affairs when the men who risk their lives for our President's foreign policy aims get snubbed by him when he's not being coerced to treat them decently by the camera.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
A good gesture.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Fishtail:

quote:

---

Bush did what is expected of any commander, and especially of a Commander-in-Chief. No more, no less.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
based on a lie and forged evidence at that.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Hyperbole? Pat, are you, a journalist, seriously denying that Bush forged the evidence about the Nigerian uranium? Or didn't lie about his knowledge about weapons of mass destruction? Or that he's not abusing the soldiers' well-earned reputation as a booster for his own, remarkably underdeserved approval rating?

Exactly what have I said that's hyperbole, Pat? If anything, I'd say you're getting away with a stunning amount of denial and apologism.

---

quote:

---

this is the kind of lying from the government that I can deal with. - Kayla
I agree that it is both a good thing, and a masterful political move. - Storm
he could at least thank more than 600 of them. - Frisco

---

quote:

---

It doesn't make Bush a bad person because he sort out a great oppurtunity (that's another, far longer, debate ). But I think it is naive to believe this visit was done solely, or even primarily out of concern for the troops, without the motivating factor of good publicity.

Photo op + good for the troops. Motivated primarily by publicity.

Special 'cos it was on thanksgiving, better news and more marketable because it was on thanksgiving.

---

I would like to believe that it was done out of the goodness of his heart plus concern for the troops...But, it is an election year and Bush is facing many questions about his reasons for being in Iraq. I think these are strong motivators for a "feel-good" photo op.

Brian, if what your friend emailed you is true, that is really sad.

**Ela**
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
I'd like to point out that the reason behind is vist is really immaterial, it's the reaction to his vist that matters, and it seems to have been a positive one hasn't it?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Pat,

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyperbole? Pat, are you, a journalist, seriously denying that Bush forged the evidence about the Nigerian uranium? Or didn't lie about his knowledge about weapons of mass destruction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lalo -- I am paid to read every story that comes across the AP wire on a nightly basis and i can honestly say I've never seen any conclusive proof that found that Bush forged anything or lied about anything. So, yes, my accusation stands.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that he's not abusing the soldiers' well-earned reputation as a booster for his own, remarkably underdeserved approval rating?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this is how YOU view it. Not as it's represented in the 'liberal' media in which I work in. Even though many deny it, a lot of us journalist like to stay neutral in the issues we cover. Bald-faced lies are not printed without conclusive proof. We're taught not to trust our own mothers. So, yes, again, I'm calling you out, asking you to tone down the hyperbole.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly what have I said that's hyperbole, Pat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of it.

---

Yeah, Pat. All of it. Way to be reasonable.

quote:

---

What am I denying? In this thread I've openly admitted I was being naive about thinking Bush did this for purely altruistic reasons.
I changed my stance on that one.

I merely came out and commented on what I thought was a genuinely cool event today. I think you would have to be in denial to not at least give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his motives to go to Iraq and serve dinner to 600 soldiers. He's their commander in chief. This is what he's paid to do.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, that's where I'm coming from. If it was any other president doing the same thing, I'd be singing their praises as well. Like I said before... I choose to look at the good people do instead of judging them on hyperbole, rumors and stuff you'd read on Hilary Clinton's website.

---

As do I. Which is why I felt my heart well up with pride and joy when I saw Bush plant a tree -- gosh, what a good, kind president we have. Golly, what a leader. Isn't it nice that he's pro-environment? I mean, he must be -- there's a picture of him planting a tree. Just like he must really care about soldiers -- after all, he does show up for a whole two hours in Iraq.
 

---

Posted by naledge (Member # 392) on :
 
While President Bush gains more in the "Geez, this guy has got some balls" category, I would not classify his trip as being "heroic", rather a necessary REQUIREMENT for the rank of his political office and his personal actions in initiating the war.

-nal
 

---

Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
 
*pops in to wave at naledge*

Where've you been?

**Ela**
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Personally, I was impressed that Bush flew in and had Thanksgiving with the troops.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush forged the evidence about the Nigerian uranium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was under the most distinct impression that was British intelligence.

---

quote:

---

Straw: uranium forgery source unknown

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Tuesday July 15, 2003

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, admitted today that the government did not know who had forged the Niger uranium documents that led to coalition claims that Saddam Hussein was attempting to develop a nuclear programme.
Making a statement to MPs on the situation in Iraq ahead of Westminster's summer recess, Mr Straw said the government had "no knowledge" that documents passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger were forged until February 2003.

He added: "We do not know [who did it] - we'd like to."

Mr Straw was unable to shed any light on the possible whereabouts of the former Iraqi dictator, saying that about him the government had "neither proof of life nor proof of death".

In another lengthy defence of the government's decision to go to war, Mr Straw told MPs it was "as justified today as it was" back in March.

In the face of mounting criticism of the intelligence reports used as a basis for military action, Mr Straw said the decision was overwhelmingly based on "open sources".

- - - - -

Of the row over intelligence reports on Iraq's alleged attempt to obtain uranium from Niger, West Africa, Mr Straw said he had already explained to the foreign affairs committee that the government had no knowledge that documents given to the IAEA were forged until February.

"As I have made clear, we had and have other separate information available to us.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,998686,00.html

---

quote:

---

If you recall, before the war almost everyone agreed that there were WMD in Iraq, the question was just if they could be used by Saddam.

---

quote:

---

I admit that it's perfectly possible that some how Bush knew that there weren't WMDs and then lied to America about it, but what evidence supports this prior knowledge on his part?

---

quote:

---

And heck, I'm not convinced that there aren't, or at least weren't WMDs in Iraq now. Or perhaps you are reffering to some other revelation recently that I'm not aware of. Which is perfectly possible since I haven't been really watching TV (read: the news ) in the last few months.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abusing the soldiers' well-earned reputation as a booster for his own, remarkably underdeserved approval rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems like an opinion (as opposed to fact) to me. Not that I really like Bush, but that doesn't make the statment "underserved approval rating" a fact.

---

quote:

---

I am paid to read every story that comes across the AP wire on a nightly basis and i can honestly say I've never seen any conclusive proof that found that Bush forged anything or lied about anything. So, yes, my accusation stands.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lalo said:
based on a lie and forged evidence at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You keep saying this. You also never seem to provide any proof.

---

quote:

---

Not hyperbole – more like lying. The Nigerian uranium evidence came from the British. Bush had nothing to do with “forging” it. In fact, it wasn’t forged, it was validly gathered intelligence that turned out to be incorrect. His inclusion of it in the State of the Union address was unfortunate, given the British’s later recanting of it, but it was literally true: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Show one place where he lied. Also, explain how other major intelligence agencies, including France’s, thought he had them before the war and yet Bush was “lying” by continuing to say this.

The search team has found evidence of an ongoing weapons program and the capability to produce with a 6 month lead time. (I’ve linked this before.) They’ve searched about 10% of the arsenals for existing stock. They’re not done looking. Is that too hard a concept for you to grasp?

Either find a statement Bush made about WMDs, show that the statement is incorrect, and demonstrate Bush new about the incorrectness or stop accusing him of lying.

---

quote:

---

Whistleblower on Niger uranium claim accuses White House of launching 'dirty-tricks campaign'
By Kim Sengupta
The Independent UK
04 August 2003

The former American diplomat who exposed false claims that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger has accused members of the Bush administration of a dirty tricks campaign against him.

The revelation of Joseph Wilson's investigation in the African state forced President George Bush to retract claims about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium made in his State of the Union speech two months before the war began.

The Administration is alleged to have leaked the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, an undercover CIA operative in the field of weapons of mass destruction, with the aim of discrediting him.

It is said that Mr. Wilson was selected to go on the trip to Niger last year only after his wife, Valerie Plame, suggested him. US intelligence officials and the Democrats are furious about the move, arguing that it jeopardises Ms. Plame's work and undermines her husband. They have called for an inquiry.

Her identity was revealed by Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, who said that he was given the information by "two senior administration officials". They told him that Ms. Plame had suggested to her CIA colleagues that her husband should be sent on the mission.

His report was followed by allegations on neo-conservative websites that Mr. Wilson was an opponent of the Iraq war, and had an interest in refuting the threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD.

Mr Wilson said yesterday that the naming of his wife had parallels with the disclosure of the identity of the British scientist David Kelly, the source of BBC allegations that the British government "sexed up" an dossier on Iraqi weapons.

"The Administration in Washington came in saying they were going to restore honour and dignity to the presidency," Mr. Wilson said. "They have shown no sign of it so far.

"This is highly damaging to my wife's career, and could be seen as a smear against me."

But it was also about discouraging "others who may have information embarrassing to the administration from coming forward," he said.

"It is absolutely untrue that my wife was responsible for my trip to Niger. I met a number of senior members of staff to discuss the visit."

Democrats have criticised the White House over disclosing Ms. Plame's identity, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York has urged the FBI to investigate.

Former US intelligence officials have also attacked the Administration for the leak, saying it put Ms. Plame at risk.

Frank Anderson, the former CIA station chief for the Near East Division, said: "When it gets to the point of an administration official acting to do career damage, and possibly endanger someone's life, that's mean, that's petty, it's irresponsible, and it ought not to be sanctioned."

Mr. Wilson, a former US ambassador to Gabon, revealed his Niger mission, undertaken last year, in a recent article in The New York Times. He reported to the State Department and the CIA that tales of Iraqi purchases of Niger uranium were without credence but it was still used by Mr. Bush in his speech, though attributed to Britain.

Mr. Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has acknowledged that the CIA told Britain that there was no evidence of Iraq attempting to acquire uranium from Niger. The Government insists, however, that it has "separate intelligence" about Iraq's attempts to acquire African uranium. Ministers have refused to state what that is.

5 August 2003 10:23

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

---

quote:

---

IRAQ'S NUCLEAR FILE : Inside the Prewar Debate Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence
By Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus,
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 10, 2003; Page A01

His name was Joe, from the U.S. government. He carried 40 classified slides and a message from the Bush administration.

An engineer-turned-CIA analyst, Joe had helped build the U.S. government case that Iraq posed a nuclear threat. He landed in Vienna on Jan. 22 and drove to the U.S. diplomatic mission downtown. In a conference room 32 floors above the Danube River, he told United Nations nuclear inspectors they were making a serious mistake.

At issue was Iraq's efforts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes. The U.S. government said those tubes were for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. But the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, had uncovered strong evidence that Iraq was using them for conventional rockets.

Joe described the rocket story as a transparent Iraqi lie. According to people familiar with his presentation, which circulated before and afterward among government and outside specialists, Joe said the specialized aluminum in the tubes was "overspecified," "inappropriate" and "excessively strong." No one, he told the inspectors, would waste the costly alloy on a rocket.

In fact, there was just such a rocket. According to knowledgeable U.S. and overseas sources, experts from U.S. national laboratories reported in December to the Energy Department and U.S. intelligence analysts that Iraq was manufacturing copies of the Italian-made Medusa 81. Not only the Medusa's alloy, but also its dimensions, to the fraction of a millimeter, matched the disputed aluminum tubes.

A CIA spokesman asked that Joe's last name be withheld for his safety, and said he would not be made available for an interview. The spokesman said the tubes in question "are not the same as the Medusa 81" but would not identify what distinguishes them. In an interview, CIA Director George J. Tenet said several different U.S. intelligence agencies believed the tubes could be used to build gas centrifuges for a uranium enrichment program.

The Vienna briefing was one among many private and public forums in which the Bush administration portrayed a menacing Iraqi nuclear threat, even as important features of its evidence were being undermined. There were other White House assertions about forbidden weapons programs, including biological and chemical arms, for which there was consensus among analysts. But the danger of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein, more potent as an argument for war, began with weaker evidence and grew weaker still in the three months before war.

This article is based on interviews with analysts and policymakers inside and outside the U.S. government, and access to internal documents and technical evidence not previously made public.

The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:

ï Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign. Iraq's three top gas centrifuge experts, for example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a mechanical engineering design center at Rashidiya.

ï The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.

ï Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible.

ï In the weeks and months following Joe's Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa's Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, "81mm rocket."

ï The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.

Two senior policymakers, who supported the war, said in unauthorized interviews that the administration greatly overstated Iraq's near-term nuclear potential.

"I never cared about the 'imminent threat,' " said one of the policymakers, with directly relevant responsibilities. "The threat was there in [Hussein's] presence in office. To me, just knowing what it takes to have a nuclear weapons program, he needed a lot of equipment. You can stare at the yellowcake [uranium ore] all you want. You need to convert it to gas and enrich it. That does not constitute an imminent threat, and the people who were saying that, I think, did not fully appreciate the difficulties and effort involved in producing the nuclear material and the physics package."

No White House, Pentagon or State Department policymaker agreed to speak on the record for this report about the administration's nuclear case. Answering questions Thursday before the National Association of Black Journalists, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she is "certain to this day that this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." White House officials referred all questions of detail to Tenet.

In an interview and a four-page written statement, Tenet defended the NIE prepared under his supervision in October. In that estimate, U.S. intelligence analysts judged that Hussein was intent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and was trying to rebuild the capability to make one.

"We stand behind the judgments of the NIE" based on the evidence available at the time, Tenet said, and "the soundness and integrity of our process." The estimate was "the product of years of reporting and intelligence collection, analyzed by numerous experts in several different agencies."

Tenet said the time to "decide who was right and who was wrong" about prewar intelligence will not come until the Iraqi Survey Group, the CIA-directed, U.S. military postwar study in Iraq of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs is completed. The Bush administration has said this will require months or years.

Facts and Doubts

The possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq loomed large in the Bush administration's efforts to convince the American public of the need for a preemptive strike. Beginning last August, Cheney portrayed Hussein's nuclear ambitions as a "mortal threat" to the United States. In the fall and winter, Rice, then Bush, marshaled the dreaded image of a "mushroom cloud."

By many accounts, including those of career officials who did not support the war, there were good reasons for concern that the Iraqi president might revive a program to enrich uranium to weapons grade and fabricate a working bomb. He had a well-demonstrated aspiration for nuclear weapons, a proficient scientific and engineering cadre, a history of covert development and a domestic supply of unrefined uranium ore. Iraq was generally believed to have kept the technical documentation for two advanced German centrifuge designs and the assembly diagrams for at least one type of "implosion device," which detonates a nuclear core.

What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials.

But the Bush administration had reasons to imagine the worst. The CIA had faced searing criticism for its failures to foresee India's resumption of nuclear testing in 1998 and to "connect the dots" pointing to al Qaeda's attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney, the administration's most influential advocate of a worst-case analysis, had been powerfully influenced by his experience as defense secretary just after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Former National Security Council official Richard A. Clarke recalled how information from freshly seized Iraqi documents disclosed the existence of a "crash program" to build a bomb in 1991. The CIA had known nothing of it.

"I can understand why that was a seminal experience for Cheney," Clarke said. "And when the CIA says [in 2002], 'We don't have any evidence,' his reaction is . . . 'We didn't have any evidence in 1991, either. Why should I believe you now?' "

Some strategists, in and out of government, argued that the uncertainty itself -- in the face of circumstantial evidence -- was sufficient to justify "regime change." But that was not what the Bush administration usually said to the American people.

To gird a nation for the extraordinary step of preemptive war -- and to obtain the minimum necessary support from allies, Congress and the U.N. Security Council -- the administration described a growing, even imminent, nuclear threat from Iraq.

'Nuclear Blackmail'

The unveiling of that message began a year ago this week.

Cheney raised the alarm about Iraq's nuclear menace three times in August. He was far ahead of the president's public line. Only Bush and Cheney know, one senior policy official said, "whether Cheney was trying to push the president or they had decided to play good cop, bad cop."

On Aug. 7, Cheney volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that "left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he will acquire nuclear weapons." On Aug. 26, he described Hussein as a "sworn enemy of our country" who constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States. He foresaw a time in which Hussein could "subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he said. "Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law."

That was a reference to Hussein Kamel, who had managed Iraq's special weapons programs before defecting in 1995 to Jordan. But Saddam Hussein lured Kamel back to Iraq, and he was killed in February 1996, so Kamel could not have sourced what U.S. officials "now know."

And Kamel's testimony, after defecting, was the reverse of Cheney's description. In one of many debriefings by U.S., Jordanian and U.N. officials, Kamel said on Aug. 22, 1995, that Iraq's uranium enrichment programs had not resumed after halting at the start of the Gulf War in 1991. According to notes typed for the record by U.N. arms inspector Nikita Smidovich, Kamel acknowledged efforts to design three different warheads, "but not now, before the Gulf War."

'Educating the Public'

Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

The first days of September would bring some of the most important decisions of the prewar period: what to demand of the United Nations in the president's Sept. 12 address to the General Assembly, when to take the issue to Congress, and how to frame the conflict with Iraq in the midterm election campaign that began in earnest after Labor Day.

A "strategic communications" task force under the WHIG began to plan speeches and white papers. There were many themes in the coming weeks, but Iraq's nuclear menace was among the most prominent.

'A Mushroom Cloud'

The day after publication of Card's marketing remark, Bush and nearly all his top advisers began to talk about the dangers of an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair conferred at Camp David that Saturday, Sept. 7, and they each described alarming new evidence. Blair said proof that the threat is real came in "the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon sites." Bush said "a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

There was no new IAEA report. Blair appeared to be referring to news reports describing curiosity at the nuclear agency about repairs at sites of Iraq's former nuclear program. Bush cast as present evidence the contents of a report from 1996, updated in 1998 and 1999. In those accounts, the IAEA described the history of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that arms inspectors had systematically destroyed.

A White House spokesman later acknowledged that Bush "was imprecise" on his source but stood by the crux of his charge. The spokesman said U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA, had given Bush his information.

That, too, was garbled at best. U.S. intelligence reports had only one scenario for an Iraqi bomb in six months to a year, premised on Iraq's immediate acquisition of enough plutonium or enriched uranium from a foreign source.

"That is just about the same thing as saying that if Iraq gets a bomb, it will have a bomb," said a U.S. intelligence analyst who covers the subject. "We had no evidence for it."

Two debuts took place on Sept. 8: the aluminum tubes and the image of "a mushroom cloud." A Sunday New York Times story quoted anonymous officials as saying the "diameter, thickness and other technical specifications" of the tubes -- precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts -- showed that they were "intended as components of centrifuges."

No one knows when Iraq will have its weapon, the story said, but "the first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Top officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows that morning. Rice's remarks echoed the newspaper story. She said on CNN's "Late Edition" that Hussein was "actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" and that the tubes -- described repeatedly in U.S. intelligence reports as "dual-use" items -- were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons," Rice added, "but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Anna Perez, a communications adviser to Rice, said Rice did not come looking for an opportunity to say that. "There was nothing in her mind that said, 'I have to push the nuclear issue,' " Perez said, "but Wolf [Blitzer] asked the question."

Powell, a confidant said, found it "disquieting when people say things like mushroom clouds." But he contributed in other ways to the message. When asked about biological and chemical arms on Fox News, he brought up nuclear weapons and cited the "specialized aluminum tubing" that "we saw in reporting just this morning."

Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also mentioned the tubes and said "increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS's "Face the Nation," asked listeners to "imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass destruction," which would kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children."

Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct. 7, and on Nov. 12 Gen. Tommy R. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet."

'Literary License'

In its initial meetings, Card's Iraq task force ordered a series of white papers. After a general survey of Iraqi arms violations, the first of the single-subject papers -- never published -- was "A Grave and Gathering Danger: Saddam Hussein's Quest for Nuclear Weapons."

Wilkinson, at the time White House deputy director of communications for planning, gathered a yard-high stack of intelligence reports and press clippings.

Wilkinson said he conferred with experts from the National Security Council and Cheney's office. Other officials said Will Tobey and Susan Cook, working under senior director for counterproliferation Robert Joseph, made revisions and circulated some of the drafts. Under the standard NSC review process, they checked the facts.

In its later stages, the draft white paper coincided with production of a National Intelligence Estimate and its unclassified summary. But the WHIG, according to three officials who followed the white paper's progress, wanted gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of intelligence.

The fifth draft of the paper was obtained by The Washington Post. White House spokesmen dismissed the draft as irrelevant because Rice decided not to publish it. Wilkinson said Rice and Joseph felt the paper "was not strong enough."

The document offers insight into the Bush administration's priorities and methods in shaping a nuclear message. The white paper was assembled by some of the same team, and at the same time, as the speeches and talking points prepared for the president and top officials. A senior intelligence official said last October that the president's speechwriters took "literary license" with intelligence, a phrase applicable to language used by administration officials in some of the white paper's most emotive and misleading assertions elsewhere.

The draft white paper precedes other known instances in which the Bush administration considered the now-discredited claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." For a speechwriter, uranium was valuable as an image because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb. Despite warnings from intelligence analysts, the uranium would return again and again, including the Jan. 28 State of the Union address and three other Bush administration statements that month.

Other errors and exaggerations in public White House claims were repeated, or had their first mention, in the white paper.

Much as Blair did at Camp David, the paper attributed to U.N. arms inspectors a statement that satellite photographs show "many signs of the reconstruction and acceleration of the Iraqi nuclear program." Inspectors did not say that. The paper also quoted the first half of a sentence from a Time magazine interview with U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix: "You can see hundreds of new roofs in these photos." The second half of the sentence, not quoted, was: "but you don't know what's under them."

As Bush did, the white paper cited the IAEA's description of Iraq's defunct nuclear program in language that appeared to be current. The draft said, for example, that "since the beginning of the nineties, Saddam has launched a crash program to divert nuclear reactor fuel for . . . nuclear weapons." The crash program began in late 1990 and ended with the war in January 1991. The reactor fuel, save for waste products, is gone.

'Footnotes and Disclaimers'

A senior intelligence official said the White House preferred to avoid a National Intelligence Estimate, a formal review of competing evidence and judgments, because it knew "there were disagreements over details in almost every aspect of the administration's case against Iraq." The president's advisers, the official said, did not want "a lot of footnotes and disclaimers."

But Bush needed bipartisan support for war-making authority in Congress. In early September, members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began asking why there had been no authoritative estimate of the danger posed by Iraq. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote Sept. 9 of his "concern that the views of the U.S. intelligence community are not receiving adequate attention by policymakers in both Congress and the executive branch." When Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), then committee chairman, insisted on an NIE in a classified letter two days later, Tenet agreed.

Explicitly intended to assist Congress in deciding whether to authorize war, the estimate was produced in two weeks, an extraordinary deadline for a document that usually takes months. Tenet said in an interview that "we had covered parts of all those programs over 10 years through NIEs and other reports, and we had a ton of community product on all these issues."

Even so, the intelligence community was now in a position of giving its first coordinated answer to a question that every top national security official had already answered. "No one outside the intelligence community told us what to say or not to say," Tenet wrote in reply to questions for this article.

The U.S. government possessed no specific information on Iraqi efforts to acquire enriched uranium, according to six people who participated in preparing for the estimate. It knew only that Iraq sought to buy equipment of the sort that years of intelligence reports had said "may be" intended for or "could be" used in uranium enrichment.

Richard J. Kerr, a former CIA deputy director now leading a review of the agency's intelligence analysis about Iraq, said in an interview that the CIA collected almost no hard information about Iraq's weapons programs after the departure of IAEA and U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, arms inspectors during the Clinton administration. He said that was because of a lack of spies inside Iraq.

Tenet took issue with that view, saying in an interview, "When inspectors were pushed out in 1998, we did not sit back. . . . The fact is we made significant professional progress." In his written statement, he cited new evidence on biological and missile programs, but did not mention Hussein's nuclear pursuits.

The estimate's "Key Judgment" said: "Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed -- December 1998."

According to Kerr, the analysts had good reasons to say that, but the reasons were largely "inferential."

Hussein was known to have met with some weapons physicists, and praised them as "nuclear mujaheddin." But the CIA had "reasonably good intelligence in terms of the general activities and whereabouts" of those scientists, said another analyst with the relevant clearances, and knew they had generally not reassembled into working groups. In a report to Congress in 2001, the agency could conclude only that some of the scientists "probably" had "continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program."

Analysts knew Iraq had tried recently to buy magnets, high-speed balancing machines, machine tools and other equipment that had some potential for use in uranium enrichment, though no less for conventional industry. Even assuming the intention, the parts could not all be made to fit a coherent centrifuge model. The estimate acknowledged that "we lack specific information on many key aspects" of the program, and analysts presumed they were seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

'He Made a Name'

According to outside scientists and intelligence officials, the most important factor in the CIA's nuclear judgment was Iraq's attempt to buy high-strength aluminum tubes. The tubes were the core evidence for a centrifuge program tied to building a nuclear bomb. Even circumstantially, the CIA reported no indication of uranium enrichment using anything but centrifuges.

That interpretation of the tubes was a victory for the man named Joe, who made the issue his personal crusade. He worked in the gas centrifuge program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1980s. He is not, associates said, a nuclear physicist, but an engineer whose work involved the platform upon which centrifuges were mounted.

At some point he joined the CIA. By the end of the 1990s, according to people who know him casually, he worked in export controls.

Joe played an important role in discovering Iraq's plans to buy aluminum tubes from China in 2000, with an Australian intermediary. U.N. sanctions forbade Iraq to buy anything with potential military applications, and members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a voluntary alliance, include some forms of aluminum tubing on their list of equipment that could be used for uranium enrichment.

Joe saw the tubes as centrifuge rotors that could be used to process uranium into weapons-grade material. In a gas centrifuge, the rotor is a thin-walled cylinder, open at both ends, that spins at high speed under a magnet. The device extracts the material used in a weapon from a gaseous form of uranium.

In July 2001, about 3,000 tubes were intercepted in Jordan on their way to Iraq, a big step forward in the agency's efforts to understand what Iraq was trying to do. The CIA gave Joe an award for exceptional performance, throwing its early support to an analysis that helped change the agency's mind about Iraq's pursuit of nuclear ambitions.

"He grabbed that information early on, and he made a name for himself," a career U.S. government nuclear expert said.

'Stretches the Imagination'

Doubts about Joe's theory emerged quickly among the government's centrifuge physicists. The intercepted tubes were too narrow, long and thick-walled to fit a known centrifuge design. Aluminum had not been used for rotors since the 1950s. Iraq had two centrifuge blueprints, stolen in Europe, that were far more efficient and already known to work. One used maraging steel, a hard steel alloy, for the rotors, the other carbon fiber.

Joe and his supporters said the apparent drawbacks were part of Iraq's concealment plan. Hussein's history of covert weapons development, Tenet said in his written statement, included "built-in cover stories."

"This is a case where different people had honorable and different interpretations of intentions," said an Energy Department analyst who has reviewed the raw data. "If you go to a nuclear [counterproliferation official] and say I've got these aluminum tubes, and it's about Iraq, his first inclination is to say it's for nuclear use."

But the government's centrifuge scientists -- at the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its sister institutions -- unanimously regarded this possibility as implausible.

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently."

As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe "anything that you absolutely could not do." But he said he would "like to see, if they're going to make that claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don't see how you do it."

A CIA spokesman said the agency does have support for its view from centrifuge experts. He declined to elaborate.

In the last week of September, the development of the NIE required a resolution of the running disagreement over the significance of the tubes. The Energy Department had one vote. Four agencies -- with specialties including eavesdropping, maps and foreign military forces -- judged that the tubes were part of a centrifuge program that could be used for nuclear weapons. Only the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research joined the judgment of the Energy Department. The estimate, as published, said that "most analysts" believed the tubes were suitable and intended for a centrifuge cascade.

Majority votes make poor science, said Peter D. Zimmerman, a former chief scientist at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

"In this case, the experts were at Z Division at Livermore [Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory] and in DOE intelligence here in town, and they were convinced that no way in hell were these likely to be centrifuge tubes," he said.

Tenet said the Department of Energy was not the only agency with experts on the issue; the CIA consulted military battlefield rocket experts, as well as its own centrifuge experts.

Unravelings

On Feb. 5, two weeks after Joe's Vienna briefing, Powell gave what remains the government's most extensive account of the aluminum tubes, in an address to the U.N. Security Council. He did not mention the existence of the Medusa rocket or its Iraqi equivalent, though he acknowledged disagreement among U.S. intelligence analysts about the use of the tubes.

Powell's CIA briefers, using data originating with Joe, told him that Iraq had "overspecified" requirements for the tubes, increasing expense without making them more useful to rockets. That helped persuade Powell, a confidant said, that Iraq had some other purpose for the tubes.

"Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so," Powell said in his speech. He said different batches "seized clandestinely before they reached Iraq" showed a "progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including in the latest batch an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. . . . Why would they continue refining the specification, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?"

An anodized coating is actually a strong argument for use in rockets, according to several scientists in and out of government. It resists corrosion of the sort that ruined Iraq's previous rocket supply. To use the tubes in a centrifuge, experts told the government, Iraq would have to remove the anodized coating.

Iraq did change some specifications from order to order, the procurement records show, but there is not a clear progression to higher precision. One tube sample was rejected because its interior was unfinished, too uneven to be used in a rocket body. After one of Iraq's old tubes got stuck in a launcher and exploded, Baghdad's subsequent orders asked for more precision in roundness.

U.S. and European analysts said they had obtained records showing that Italy's Medusa rocket has had its specifications improved 10 times since 1978. Centrifuge experts said in interviews that the variations had little or no significance for uranium enrichment, especially because the CIA's theory supposes Iraq would do extensive machining to adapt the tubes as rotors.

For rockets, however, the tubes fit perfectly. Experts from U.S. national labs, working temporarily with U.N. inspectors in Iraq, observed production lines for the rockets at the Nasser factory north of Baghdad. Iraq had run out of body casings at about the time it ordered the aluminum tubes, according to officials familiar with the experts' reports. Thousands of warheads, motors and fins were crated at the assembly lines, awaiting the arrival of tubes.

"Most U.S. experts," Powell asserted, "think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium." He said "other experts, and the Iraqis themselves," said the tubes were really for rockets.

Wood, the centrifuge physicist, said "that was a personal slam at everybody in DOE," the Energy Department. "I've been grouped with the Iraqis, is what it amounts to. I just felt that the wording of that was probably intentional, but it was also not very kind. It did not recognize that dissent can exist."

Staff writers Glenn Kessler, Dana Priest and Richard Morin and staff researchers Lucy Shackelford, Madonna Lebling and Robert Thomason contributed to this report.

---

quote:

---

Lalo said:
Keep saying it? Dagonee, by the time you posted that, I said it once. Gosh, how repetitive I am.

---

• I mean, sure, he forged evidence and lied to the world, but who would've guessed he'd try to manipulate the American people?
• without any substantial reason why, with forged evidence

quote:

---

By the way, Dagonee, don't be a jackass. I'm sure I can handle a concept that difficult -- it's a scary prospect, but somehow, I'll try to manage.

---

quote:

---

Here's an article on Wilson and the Nigerian uranium.

---

quote:

---

I'm following it with a very interesting Washington Post article on the bad evidence used by the administration to start the war.

---

quote:

---

Note how I assume you're capable of grasping a concept this complex.

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, Bush did land the fighter on his own on the carrier, right?

---

He flew the plane? That is impressive.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
I see someone has played the Islamic fundamentalism card. In reality Saddm was more of its opponent than George Bush could ever hope to be. It is this kind of bias, ignorance and stereotyping that occurs within the conservative media and masses in America that constantly look to find something worthy of replacing the Soviets as our new enemy. All the Cold War theorists and flunkies are looking for something to validate their roles, jobs, and outlooks on life in a world that needn't necessarily have that conflict at all. This reminds me of Samuel Huntington's self-fullfilling tripe about the "clash of the civilizations," in which he broadens, generalizes and slurs cultures so much that they don't even resemble past reality. Heh, he should have left it with the poorly-developed thesis, when he expanded it to the book it got a million times worse.

By the way Irami, Bush flew the plane for about 30 seconds in air, but was not allowed to touch the controlls during take off or landing.

[ November 28, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
 
So the campaign in Afghanistan didn't anger them at all? Quite the suprise
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Lalo, I'm gonna bow out of this, because frankly, you've revealed your true colors as a ultra liberal, Bush hater. Nothing the man could say or do would change anything for you, so this conversation with you isn't worth my time. If you even showed a shred of respect for the man, I'd take your views and use them, but to be frank, you're a blowhard.

Have fun.


 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Blowhard and have fun shouldn't be in close proximity to one another in any post.

Ever.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Incidentally, Bush did land the fighter on his own on the carrier, right?"

No. He flew the plane on the straight and level after it had reached altitude, then turned it over before landing.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Bush I was a fighter pilot, I believe; Bush II was a businessman.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Bush II was also a fighter pilot, because the alternative would have meant serving in Vietnam.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Can you say that definitively, Tom, or are you assuming that?
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Bush II was a fighter pilot. During Vietnam, Bush I got his son a position in the Texas National Guard. Taxpayers spent a million training him as a fighter pilot -- then Bush requested a transfer to Alabama's National Guard, and never arrived to serve. He's classified as AWOL, I believe.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The because is inferred. And to be fair, I doubt he had much to do with the decision. But it is surprising how with only being in the 25th percentile on the test (minimum passing grade) he jumped to the head of a very long line of prior applicants (over a year I believe).

Its more of an issue why he did not show up at his assigned post for lengthy periods, if you consider this period of his life to be significant.

Personally, I don't. I see that he managed to reform himself from being an alcoholic, and because of the evidenced reform and general principles I'm willing to let stupid stuff he did in his distant youth be bygones.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Lalo, I'm gonna bow out of this, because frankly, you've revealed your true colors as a ultra liberal, Bush hater. Nothing the man could say or do would change anything for you, so this conversation with you isn't worth my time. If you even showed a shred of respect for the man, I'd take your views and use them, but to be frank, you're a blowhard.

---

Yeah, Pat. Daring to suggest that Bush's photo-op is meant to benefit Bush, not the troops, reveals my colors as an ultra-liberal. Suggesting that Bush lied about Nigerian uranium even though he was advised against it both by Wilson and key members of his own staff like Powell reveals me as a Bush-hater.

What you've revealed yourself as, however, is worse than a blowhard. You're so desperate to believe the best about Bush that you not only fail to answer virtually every question I pose, you ignore them in favor of calling me names as if demonizing me would somehow prove you correct.

Okay, Pat.

Have fun.


 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
What did I say about blowhards having fun?!
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Lalo, you don't pay any particular attention to facts, particularly not in this case, and you consistently use meaningless rhetoric to act like you've won an argument when in fact you didn't even listen to the other side's arguments.

Grow up.

btw, an interesting list for comparisons: http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Hey Lalo ....

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't matter.



Hey look everyone!!

Lalo's blowing hard again!!

[ November 28, 2003, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Pat ]
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Fugu, I have problems with your link. For example:
"Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1), too busy being a Republican."-oh yeah, that's not biased, they could at least try
"Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies for the Army in southern California during WWII. He later seems to have confused his role as an actor playing a tail gunner with the real thing."-Wow, this is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan wanted to serve, he was nearly blind so he didn't even have a choice. He could have continued his civilian acting career and made plently of money, but instead he joined the Army and did what he could. That's a lot more than I could say for many Democrats.

If it would present things in an unbiased way then I wouldn't have to question its legitimacy, but then again I wonder...
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You missed out all the republicans that were complemented for their service. Plus, those comments are more than a little tongue in cheek. If you had clicked on the words next to Karl Rove, you would have found that was, in fact, what he was doing during those years -- being in politics, including one or two (admitted and professed reformed) youthful illegal activities. Also, every instance has a little link next to it that either takes you to a place where their lack of military service is stated, or where one would assume military service would be listed had it occurred.

As for the Reagan thing, Reagan was known for telling anecdotes about war. Unfortunately, some of the most famous ones are completely fictitious, and drawn from his knowledge and experience in film: http://www.rickross.com/reference/false_memories/fsm19.html

The page phrased it as a bit of a joke, due to that well known Reagan slip up. Plus, didn't you notice the disclaimer at the top? Fair and balanced, just like Fox News.
 

---

Posted by Kirst (Member # 5967) on :
 
I think that Bush did take a risk and it was a good thing to come to the troops and everything.

I also think that Bush accomplished a lot for doing this.

1) met w/ the Iraqi government place

2) Fed troops turkey which they probably could not have gotten otherwise.

3) Visited the troops in the first place on thanksgiving which he would rather not be doing.

4) Showed off publicly that he was doing it (although he did a lot to get rid of the media in the first place)

and 5) Showed an awesome stunt of how he could travel halfway around the world withouht ANYONE knowing about it. THAT IS SIMPLY AMAZING!!!
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Uh, Kirst, 2 just plain isn't true, 3 hopefully isn't true (and I don't think it is), 4 isn't hard when you bring along your typical minimmal media group (they have a rotating pool for determing who gets to go in such a situation), and 5 isn't hard either when you're president. Its done all the time, albeit not halfway around the world. But that's not a particularly difficult special case to achieve from the general case.
 

---

Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
 
You really think he brought them that turkey? They were going to get it regardless. The only thing Bush did was hold a platter for a few moments and serve up a couple plates in line while photos were being shot.

But hey Kirst, you wanna talk about people who didn't get turkey at all for real, why don't we talk about some of the thousands of homeless, hungry Americans that could have been fed with the money Bush used to boost his PR with his little secret mission.

www.costofwar.com

quote:

---

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953

---

[ November 29, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
More importantly, #1 -- "met w/ the Iraqi government place" -- isn't true, either. The Iraqi Governing Council was not advised of his visit, and did not meet with him; Bremer attended dinner with Bush, but that's not exactly representative of "Iraqi government."
 

---

Posted by Kirst (Member # 5967) on :
 
I was just going off info from the forum tom. sry

it doesnt happen all the time tho. It was a big stunt and took a lot of time and precautions to do it. To have it not leak like it did is almost impossible considering the number of people that had to know.

Kirst
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
I'm sorry, Dagonee. I was about halfway through a reply to your post when I refreshed the thread.

I don't think I should post here any longer. Either I'm stuck in dick mode -- more than a possibility, considering how off I've felt in the past few weeks -- or the world's shifting to persecute me, a worldview I just criticized another Hatracker for having.

I doubt it's the latter. So, I'm afraid I'll have to bow out of the argument. It's exhausting and depressing to be a dick all the time and stil maintain any kind of meatspace personal life. Let alone when old friends feel the need to remind me that I don't matter or that my arguments have long relied on ignorance of the facts.

It's not worth it to lose the respect of others and myself to continue a discussion I've been burnt out on for months.

Thanks for your time in any case, dude.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Tom, you're actually wrong about "#1". Bush met with Iraqi leaders after the dinner. I saw it in the original Yahoo! article but I can't find it anymore and the only specific person I remember that Bush met with is the mayor of Baghdad. He met with others also, I just don't remember who they were.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
It was all Ender's idea.


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Tom, you're actually wrong about '#1.' Bush met with Iraqi leaders after the dinner."

I'm sure Bush ran into random Iraqis. The actual leaders of the Iraqi government, however, were not informed of the visit -- and were actually upset enough about it that one of them made the comment that he does not consider Bush's visit to have been a visit to Iraq, since he didn't actually go anywhere or talk to anyone.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 

quote:

---

While in Baghdad on Thanksgiving, Bush met four council members, including Chalabi.

---

quote:

---

US President George W. Bush says he had a "good talk" for about 30 minutes November 27 with four members of Iraq's Governing Council at Baghdad International Airport, following his surprise meeting with U.S. troops there.

Briefing the White House press pool accompanying him on Air Force One as he returned to the United States after the two-and-one-half-hour stop in Baghdad, Bush said he and L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, met with Jalal Talibani, the current president of the council, Raja Habib Khuzaii, Ahmed Chalabi, and Mowaffak Rubaie

---

quote:

---

While in Baghdad on Thanksgiving, Mr. Bush met four council members. But some in the Bush administration, harboring a certain distrust of the council, suspect its members of trying to disrupt any transition, and hoping to stay in power.

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/29/international/middleeast/29DIPL.html

Someone should tell the press he didn't meet with any of the Iraqi Governing Council members.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kayla, take a look at what you just wrote.

Knowing what you do about the political process, do you consider it a "meeting" if a President flies into a country, press in tow, for a day of photo opportunities, and spends (by his own estimate) thirty minutes talking to a minority sample of that country's leadership council -- at the airport, no less, on the way out of the country.

Now, Bush DID meet earlier with Bremer -- because it's no secret that Bush considers Bremer, not without some cause, to be the real government in Iraq -- but can you explain how it's possible for the leadership of any country to take an impromptu thirty-minute tarmac meeting (which didn't even represent the entire council) as anything but a snub?

I'm sorry about the misunderstanding; I hadn't interpreted a stolen hello at the departure gate as a "meeting," and I'm kind of surprised that anyone would.

[ November 29, 2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
 
Just a quick question: how long does it take to fly from Washington, DC, to Iraq?

All that time, with the press on board the Presidential Jet (or follow up jet), and all their editors aware of what was going on, and it's a "surprise?"

Steve (Utra-liberal Bush-hater)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, it actually WAS a surprise. The journalists were told that if they even PEEPED about the trip until they were back on the ground, the plane would be turned around in the air. No one wanted to be a party pooper.
 

---

Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
 
Or if they told it might have gotten out to the Iraqi militia and there might have been like a thousand armed Iraqi soldiers waiting to kill the President.

Tom, the point is Bush did meet with Iraqi leaders. Even Kayla agrees with me, come on. Its not as if he could have stayed any longer as word was bound to get out that he was in Iraq.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Come on, I bet the Iraqis would want to give him hugs and kisses.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Hershey kisses.
 

---