General discussion


So What is the DMC's problem - with GWB visiting Iraqi that takes some guts

By JimHM ·
OK GWB went off to Bagdad to thank the troops - and celebrate Thanksgiving. Great treat for those serving in the theater when the Commander and Chief comes.

So then the DMC - starts crying - "It was all political." - "It was for next years election." - Yadada - But at the same time they had two over in Afghan - Billary and someone else - I guess she was there to AID the Morale of the Troops by going down on each of them?

The DMC - has nothing better to do the critize some other polictal party for doing the same thing they are doing... I think they are PO'ed for being Upstaged - by a better man

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Predictable Response

by dbertsche In reply to So What is the DMC's prob ...


What did you expect from the Democraps? It was so predictable I called it before they ever said anything.

I think most people will see through their feeble attempts to tear down Bush. They are really pathetic.

Collapse -

As an American

by Cactus Pete In reply to So What is the DMC's prob ...

I, as a citizen of the USA, consider any sitting president who knowingly travels into more than simply 'hostile' lands - in this case a country with which we are still currently AT WAR - to be of poor judgement.

On the eleventh of September, 2001, the currently sitting president was 'kept safe' by flying around in Airforce One to several undisclosed places. On Thanksgiving, he flew this plane into an airport known for having large aircraft downed. He risked himself, yes. That would normally be fine with me. But he risked the president of the United States of America. That's just not sound judgement.

Collapse -


by dbertsche In reply to As an American

So I suppose when FDR went to Europe during WWII that was poor judgement too? I suppose when Eishenhower went to Korea that was poor judgement too? I suppose when LBJ went to Viet Nam that was poor judgement too? How about Clinton going to Kosovo, poor judgement there as well right?

As long as the proper security measures are taken I really don't see anything wrong with the Commander-in-chief visiting the troops in the field.

Unless you're prepared to site all the examples listed above as poor judgement find something else to criticize Bush about.

Collapse -

That I am

by Cactus Pete In reply to Others

The president of the United States has a duty to fulfill. This person should not be allowed to take such a risk.

Yes, I cede that other may have travelled when they should not have. But I find it inexcusable for any sitting president, as I had stated, to fly into harm's way.

There is no security measure that could have been taken to ease my thoughts of this. If there were, they sure should have been taking these steps long ago to stop the violence that is oozing about Iraq.

You don't see generals on the front lines of a war for a reason. The commander in chief should be much farther away than that.

Note, I am not arguing the political side of this. I am saying that the president should not do such things.

Collapse -

9-11 versus Thanksgiving

by maxwell edison In reply to As an American

You compared being "kept safe by flying around in Air Force One" to "flying this plane into an airport known for having large aircraft downed".

You haven't considered that the former was a situation out of control, (being controlled by others - terrorists), while the latter was a situation considered much under control.

Even the Democrat Party presidential opponents weren't opposed to it. (Although they didn't really have much choice.)

Candidate John Edwards, said through his spokeswoman, "I believe President Bush's visit to the troops was a nice thing to do. But unless this visit is followed by a change in policy that brings in our allies and truly internationalizes the effort, our mission is not going to be successful."

"I don't have anything political or partisan to say about it," said Democrat Joe Lieberman. "There are days when you have to say, we're not Republicans, we're not Democrats. We are Americans. "

John Kerry said, "I thought it was terrific. I think it's the right thing for a president to do."

Personally, I think it was a great thing to do. What a boost it must have been for the troops serving there, especially the ones who met him.

Collapse -


by Cactus Pete In reply to 9-11 versus Thanksgiving

What level of threat to the office of the president is acceptable?

Iraq is not under enough 'control' for me to go there. Sure, the president gets screens of men between him and bullets, but his plane could have been hit, if not downed. What a terrible thing to give our enemies - the thought that they really can get at us...

It was too risky.

Maybe he should have had a live two way broadcast via satellite to the troops. He could have reached more of them that way, anyway. That's just a quick idea off of the top of my head.... I'd think that the real planners could have come up with something at least as good and at least as safe.

A lot of people who don't like the man say that it's too bad he wasn't shot down. I can't subscribe to that, either. He just plain should not have gone.

Collapse -


by dbertsche In reply to Hm

Disagree totally, if we followed your logic to it's ultimate conclusion the president would never leave the whitehouse! Perhaps we should stow him away in a bunker to keep him away from all the evil in the world. Remember JFK was shot and killed in Dallas and Reagan was shot at in D.C.

I believe anyone who is elected president does so knowing there is always going to be risk assoicated with the job. Reasonable methods are employed to insure their safety but one only has to look at the recent sniper killings in the D.C. area to know that none of us are totally safe.

As far as your idea about the president appearing on closed circuit, I was in Viet Name and if that had happened there it wouldn't have meant much to me or my fellow soldiers. Afterall the president has sent his fellow americans into "harm's way" for tours of duty lasting one year while he is only there for a very brief amount of time.

You also mention our enemies being able to "get at us". Didn't they already do that? Isn't that one of the reasons we're fighting terrorism? What would have happened if one of the planes on 9/11 had gotten to D.C. and hit the whitehouse? Thank God it didn't happen but the president doesn't have to travel across the pond to be in danger.

I salute him for going and thought it was the right thing to do, they also took the proper precautions and insured the cat would not get out of the bag concerning the details. Was there some risk? Sure but perhaps not as much as you might think. Air Force 1 is well equipped and I'm sure there was fighter protection the whole time.

Collapse -

Extremes and likelihoods

by Cactus Pete In reply to Disagree

You show that an extreme is unlikely to happen, or to prevent it, we'd have to take other extremes. Well, no duh.

But all the fighters in Iraq and all the precautions of AF1 don't really matter squat to the RPG shot from near the landing strip...

Yes, the terrorists 'got at us' on 9-11. But those aren't the same enemy that is over in Iraq right now, shooting at all the servicemen and women and the coalition aids. If THEY got at us, then we risk more of the populace joining in and really creating a quagmire [the term thrown in for those of you who I know just love it] over there.

The cat didn't even have to get out of the bag for this to have easily been turned to a tragedy. THAT is the point that I'm making.

If the sniper were still threatening a certain gas station, and no one had caught him yet, do you think the secret service would allow the president to tour it? Would it really matter to most people in the area who no longer get fuel at that station if he did, and survived?

Your comparisons aren't practical or at all in the scope of what happened. He shouldn't have gone.

Collapse -

Not Practical?

by dbertsche In reply to Extremes and likelihoods

Once again I have to disagree with you. You are obviously not knowledgeable about the capabilities of AF1 or our fighters as they would be able to deflect an RPG away easily.

You make a distinction between terrorists, what difference does it make, ask someone to make that distinction when their life is being threatened.

I fully understand the point you're making, but a tradegy didn't happen and wasn't likely to happen. Once again you assume the worst is going to happen. We can't live our lives always assuming the worst thing is going to happen!

Regarding your comment about comparisons, you made the point about the president's safety, my comparisons only brought up the fact that we can not assure that any situation will be 100% safe. You calling them not practical doesn't negate the fact they happened and in our own country.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion that he shouldn't have gone but I think he should have and I'm glad he did.

Collapse -


by mrbill- In reply to Not Practical?

?? You are obviously not knowledgeable about the capabilities of AF1 or our fighters as they would be able to deflect an RPG away easily??

An RPG is a shoulder fired rocket with no guidance, you shoot it and it flies sorta straight ahead. Radar guided missiles can be jammed or chafed. Heat seeking missiles can be defeated with flares. The aircraft have sensors that tell them when a radar signal hits them, but they have no way, except by visual, to detect a heat seeker. The flight profile that AF1 would have used to get into and out of Baghdad would make hitting it with an RPG near to impossible. Hitting a low flying helicopter is easier than hitting a rapidly descending aircraft, even a 747, speed and angle. The shooter would have to be really good and with exceptional intel to know when and where to be at for the optimum shot, in the dark. They are not that good over there, just lucky sometimes.

Related Discussions

Related Forums