Look at the size of that chicken! If only the Iraqi citizens would simply learn to sneak around the Iraq without being seen, then there would be no problem. I propose therefore that we spend the $9,000,000,000 monthly on stealth suits for all Iraqi citizens (but only for the Good Iraqi citizens.)
Update: From Harper’s weekly review, “President Bush showed up in Iraq for Thanksgiving wearing an Army tracksuit; Bush stayed in the country for two and a half hours, the same amount of time spent by President Lyndon B. Johnson in Vietnam, in 1966.”
O brave new quantum world!
I think it is a valid criticism when his entire cabinet is saying how good things are going in Iraq. If he was saying, “shit, we’ve gotten ourselves in way over our heads and have to find a way out of this mess we’ve created”, then I would be more inclined to agree with you. In the case of FDR, Wilson, and Lincoln, none of these fine gentlemen was claiming that everything was going fine in Europe or the South.
To answer Nate’s question:
I was just watching Meet the Press on Sunday and this presidential historian was on the panel. Apparently Lincoln spent over twenty days of his presidency visiting the soldiers during the civil war (making trips was of course a much bigger deal in those days). She said FDR also liked to set up impromptu/secret trips, a couple to meet with Churchill, including the first time an American president went to Africa.
So maybe Rubb-a-Dubb is not quite such a badass.
Well, there we are. Thanks for the info.
Man, it’s cold in Boston.
Dave, this is the wrong place for the much longer argument I’m tempted to make, but if there’s one thing I hate (and there are many such things), it’s agreement. So, to summarize,
1) Staying longer than 2 hours would have been stupid for security reasons, so leaving after that time is not cowardice.
2) The risk to Bush’s person in Baghdad comes not from general Iraqi discontent or anarchy. It comes from an organized terrorist army supplied with the stockpiled weapons of its progenitor state, and for that army Bush is literally the highest value target in the world. The security risk he faces going there is not indicative of Iraq’s general condition.
3) I went boarding Friday, and it was holy.
1) So do you suggest we rotate U.S. soldiers in and out of Iraq on two hour timescales? There is a security problem for the U.S. soldiers as well, from the same set of forces that would love to attack the Pres, but they are bound to the war without the luxury of two hour visits. I refuse to make the executive branch of the government my monarch. “All men are equal, but the president is equaler?” I do not believe the stability of the U.S. government (the U.S. democracy) is in anyway furthered by an executive branch of privledge and luxury which can push soliders to their death for falicitious reasons while doing the upmost to protect itself from any possibility of attack. Democracy is not about a president and his special privledge and this cult of the executive branch has a foul foul stench. [Of course I know history is not on me here…but if I’m going to be principled, argument by “the past did this so we should follow this example” is not allowed.] This is not to say that I do not think W’s life is not important. But I put its importance up their with the soldiers. If I put W’s life on a higher level, I find myself living with King W, something which I thought we tried to escape back in the 18th century.
2) This is a better argument, but what makes someone a terrorist? Do you really believe all attacks in Iraq are from outside organizations having no association with the former Iraqi regime? I have no doubt, if I were of Bin Ladin ilk, that I would rush to Iraq and attack as many American targets as I could (which is a hilariously stupid use of resources…why attack in Iraq when you could attack elsewhere where there is less military to blow you away?) But I can also think of a lot of reasons a typical Iraqi citizin would be pissed off enough at the U.S. to carry out an attack. First and foremost is the fact that we killed a buttload (>5000?) Iraqi’s during the war. You don’t kill that many people without creating a hell of a lot of resentment (9/11 being an example.) Further, the U.S. has caught and is persecuting a lot of failed attacks on soldiers. The rate at which I hear that these are outsiders with terrorist connections is definitely not 100%. I’d guestimate it to be somewhere around 10%. Further, I have followed numerous reports of people with “alleged terrorist connections” which disapear into the information netherland. Follow up stories have failed to materialize. There are also countless examples of commanders on the ground in Iraq disputing the white house’s claims that these are all outside terrorists. Me, I trust those on the ground more than those in D.C. Clearly the risk comes from both the general Iraqi populace left over from the regime and from terrorist groups. But in what proportion?
3) You are a bastard, Bill, and I envy you. I have applied for faculty positions in places where I can ski. Know anyone in the physics department at UW?
Just to play devil’s advocate here, but it’s hardly fair judging Bush as a poor leader for not spending time incountry. Perhaps one should look back at the number days, as fraction of war length, that (say) Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR spent at the front? I.e., not that many…
(The Gettysburg Address, yes, yes.)