President traveled to Iraq on Thanksgiving and spent approximately 2.5 hours with the troops. After a short speech he ate with them and served food on the line much like the KPs of my era. Will the Dems try to use this against him as they did the Aircraft Carrier landing he made? Will this help him in his re-election bid? Do you really care?

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2003

Answers

The democratic politicians will gripe because that's their job. As the opposition they can't give the President credit for anything. It's more than that though. Many of these people have NO fear of God, and they have a severe hatred for GW. His Christianity makes it even worse. It's personal. They can't work with him on anything.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2003

I certainly hope it was a morale booster to the troops who have laid their lives on the line for the president's cause. I pray daily for the men and women who have left home and family to find WMD's and to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. I pray daily for the American people who will spend hundreds of billions of dollars to free the Iraqi people to kill our soliders while Americans die daily because we don't have the money for affordable health care. Mr. Bush's Christianity works for him. And at this Thanksgiving I hope he feels good about all that he has done to make this world a safer place for all. Now if I could just get my tongue out of my cheek.

-- Anonymous, November 27, 2003

He is not alone. I and many other Americans including our brave soldiers, sailors, and airman are in full support of the President and his policies.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

I suppose somebody forgot to tell Semate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Senator Ted Kennedy about the President's "unexpected" trip to Baghdad. Those fine "gentlemen" are probably still licking their wounds over the huge political loss in trying to block Medicare reform. I sure would like to be in attendance when they attempt to explain to elderly constituents that having nothing is better than having something less-than perfect. QED

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

I think it was a wonderful boost to the troops who met with President Bush in Iraq.

Unfortunately, when he was young he couldn't make it to Viet Nam as a sacrifice (and he is not the only one, dems and repubs alike..i.e, Clinton and Chaney)but with all the security the US can afford, he can find 2.5 hours to make it to the Middle East.

No one individual has to worry about licking wounds, because we are all going to be licking wounds when we have to pay for this war (that is really not a war...officially). BTW, what happened to the weapons of mass destruction? What happened to Saddam and Bin Laden?

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

I forgot to include in the above, what happened to "Mission Accomplished?" You know the sign that was hung from the carrier that the president was on? The one that the Navy said the White House folk hung out, and the one that the White House said the Navy put on display?"

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

Mary -

The military mission in Baghdad was accomplished when US forces captured the city. Even Tarik Azziz acknowledges this point of fact. The transition to Iraqi self-rule has not gone according to plans. The loss of life is painful but these are the risks of military intervention and nation building. However, despite the problems, there is no indication that the Iraqi people favor a return to the status quo. Now concerning your interest about WMD, the search is on- going but enventually they will be located. UN inspectors indicated that WMD were located in Iraq yet they found nothing after nearly 10 years of on again-off again inspections. The US has been in Iraq less than 9 months. In the final analysis, it won't really matter to the Bush critics because any evidence of WMD will be disputed for political gain. Some of us would rather believe Al-Queada & Saddam Hussein than our own government. QED

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

Explain this. Preemptive strike...the same justification used in Viet Nam. Didn't work and we lost. How do you explain it today? It was Bin Laden in Afghanistan who hit us. Why did the president go after Hussein? The rest of the world knew what was going on, why didn't American and England. Saddam was boasting of WMD to keep his Arab neighbors at bay.

Now, I know there are Iraqis who are glad Saddam is gone. But this is a country that has been at war since before biblical times. We tell ourselves and them that because America believes they should have a democracy they will have one. We will use our American boys lives to make sure they have what we want them to have and our money to make sure they have what we believe need. In spite of Colin Powell trying to put the brakes on, and him being somewhat side lined by the White House at the time American went to war and according to Bush for our security and WMD. When will people wake up and act like they know better. How many helicopters and strikes have taken place? How many soldiers' throats have to be slit before we start asking real hard questions and make the government give us serious answers instead of the regular spiel. Bush said WMD, remember that, Bush said it.

As far as I am concerned I want my tax dollars to be applied to homelesness and educating our children. I want my tax dollars to educate young people in the ways of truth, righteousness and the ways of peace. On the way to church on Thanksgiving Day in a bounteous country I had to pass the outcasts of society. Funny how we came up with all the money needed for war quick and have nothing for education, etc. Maybe war is profitable, but peace is priceless.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

My thoughts, as always, of GWB is how cleaver and how cute. He pulled another one on tens of millions of Americans like he did three years ago. I am certain that there was some benefit and merit in his visit to Iraq. I am also sure that some morales were boosted by it.

To go back to the original question asked in this post, If I were Rhett Butler I know what I would say. But, because I am a Christian and active in my church, I am compelled to paraphrase Rhett's famous line in my answer in this post.

That is to say, when it come to GWB, Frankly, I don't even really care.

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

Mary opines, (again I might add) -

"Explain this. Preemptive strike...the same justification used in Viet Nam. Didn't work and we lost. How do you explain it today? It was Bin Laden in Afghanistan who hit us. Why did the president go after Hussein? The rest of the world knew what was going on, why didn't American and England. Saddam was boasting of WMD to keep his Arab neighbors at bay."

I'm starting to think you are my "ex" with your persistent concerns about US military interventionism :-) First, a point of correction. Viet Nam was not an application of the doctrine of "preemptive strike". A pre-emptive strike is based on reliable reconnaissance which concludes a threat is minimized by acting first to completely disable the threat as opposed to reacting after the threat has been made. Shoot today, eat today is prefered to shoot tomorrow and eat tomorrow. The chief architect of the Vietnam War, Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara, based his prosecution of Ho Chi Minh as a threat to invade South Vietnam, foster a Marxist alliance with China and create a geo-political imbalance throughout Indo-China. This is not what military strategists today call a "preemptive strike". Second, the politicians in Washington (especially the McGovern wing of the Democrats) lost Vietnam, not our military troops. The Tet Offensive is grossly distorted by revisionist "historians". Tet was a military victory and the losses of the Viet Cong were enormous compared to US casualties, yet many insist that Tet was a "turning point" in the war in favor of the Viet Cong. Not true. Consult with any militry historian for the real story. Third, the US "went after Saddam" because of his non-complinace with UN Resolution 11246 which required he divest of WMD and flee from Baghdad according to the 24 hour grace period issued by the President. Finally, the US responded with disproportionate force against the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9- 11. Since the Taliban provided asylum to Bin Laden the attack against the Taliban was in fact an attack against Bin Laden. The Taliban has been defeated, civil rights have been restored in Afghanistan and Bin Laden still "speaks" from recorded tapes as opposed to live interviews. I wonder why? QED

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

Greetings to you my Brothers and Sisters

Finally I have returned to the electronic world since much damage in September from a Hurricane in Bermuda.I have missed you and this board. Pastor Paris has important questions and the comentary has been good. Happy Thanksgiving to you all (although late).

Pastor Paris I believe the Democrats have lost their way and seem to be constantly playing catch-up to the President. As the comander in Chief he can and should travel wherever the armed forces of the United States are stationed. While I appreciate your questions I am more concerned with the constant loss of life in Iraq of American Servicemen and women.I stated a long time ago this invasion was both wrong and problematic since the United States has not appeared to understand the difference in the approaches of the Muslim world.While significant damage has been set upon both Bin Laden adn Sadam (including the loss of his sons) American are in a country of 23 million people who will not stay patient much longer. The satellite photos used by the distinguished Gen. Powell have not transitioned into real finds in Iraq. President Bush went ahead of the United Nations in declaring war on Iraq and now is seeking assistance as the massive bill for the bombs now is starting to add up. Sadly I believe Mr. Bush may fall in popularity as the cold winds of winter expose the society issues in America over this winter. And neither the Aircraft Carrier nor the Baghdad Blitz will help him if Americans continue to be challenged as Californians are today. Most states are cutting back services while U. S. Tax dollars are going to feed and help persons attacked by the U.S. This will continue to be a difficult topic of discussion but as I watch the constant line of reports of ambushes and rocket grenade deaths of American in Iraq I pray. When I watch the stories of the beautiful wives and mothers who have lost the bedrock of their families I am moved with sadness. I hope and pray that a realistic and practical exit strategy is in place since I do not believe America's intervention and invasion will make one solitary difference in Iraq. Remember the Iran experiment failed which led to America arming and financing guess who?

God Bless You All and My prayers are with you. Please keep me in your prayers as I continue to deal with my trials as well.

Grace Mercy Peace

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

My hawkish friend Bill:

Wow that was quite a stretch on the failure of Iraq to live up to the UN resolution. But it has some logic to it. But come on Bill fess up GWB is just cleaning up the mess GHWB left behind. Hip Hip Hoo ray Iraq is free, American soliders are dying to keep the peace and the elderly members of my church are still choosing between food and medicine.

Long live GWB!!!

Harold

-- Anonymous, November 28, 2003

bush can now say he served in Iraq....lol...(photo op of him serving chow) Dems will point out that troops have been in Afghanistan for THREE Thanksgivings with no visit from bush.... but they aren't holding their breaths in anticipation of his arrival... Troops in Afghanistan know they are the forgotten ones of this so called "war on terrorism".. As to date bush hasn't done a thing to make me feel safe from terrorists.. Win

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2003

We haven't forgotten the troops in Afghanistan in my community. The planes from our Air Force base fly in there regularly.

The Afghan front gets less press because there are so many thousands more troops serving in Iraq. One place that IS forgotten though is the daily work done by police and intelligence agencies around the world. That is perhaps the most important front of all.

-- Anonymous, November 29, 2003

Did you see in the news where Hillary Clinton was in Iraq also? Talking about getting eclipsed. In any event, I find it amusing that a woman senator can fly into a war region and walk amongst the troops (I'm sure she had protection) announced. Although she is not the POTUS she still was more actively engaged. In any event, you've got to say this about women, we are not the weaker sex.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2003

I don't recall the former First Lady making an "official" visit to Sarajevo when that city was destroyed by the Balkan butcher (Slobodan Milosevic) and the ariel power of NATO jets under the command of one General Wesley Clark. I suppose such a "visit" might be misconstrued as being a bit self-serving. Perhaps the Jr. Senator from NY can explain to the US troops in Iraq why she is putting politics above US military interests in her persistent criticism of the Administration's policy in that region of the world. QED

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2003

Mary,

Not only was Senator Clinton's visit to Iraq announced by many nation papers in advance of her arrival there, but it also was a top story last Wednesday on America Online. I wondered how long it was take those who post on this board to realize that she too spent her Thanksgiving visiting and boosting the morale of our troops in Iraq.

I hold nothing but the highest regard for her. If she were running for President or Senator of my district, she would certainly have my vote of confidence.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2003

Who is the bigger target for the enemy, Senator Clinton or President Bush? The President of course.

-- Anonymous, November 30, 2003

Oh contraire. If you heard Ms. Clinton on the news she is in support of the troops. Also, a target is a target, just like a coward is a coward.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2003

So much for political satire within an otherwise very good bulletin board. Are we now headed to the "all republicans are conservative envangelical christians and all democrates are liberals, anti God, and otherwise, scums banished from heaven." Apparently, during an election year, politics must raise its ugly head. Lord, have mercy.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 2003

Did anyone take a close look at the photo with GWB serving turkey to the troops? Will someone from the location of that photo shoot in "Iraq" please write and describe the feeling of having the "presidential turkey" served amidst the throng of soldiers who seem to be only slightly less interested in eating Thanksgiving dinner than in the one holding the bounty. You (we) are all victims of the age of special effects computer technology. I sincerely doubt that the soldier to the left of the president's arm is aware that his head is leaning toward a platter of goodies served up from the Great USof A. Please don't allow the detached, trancelike stares from soldiers in the immediate background to confirm stereotypes of the multi-racial draftees who never actually recognized the man in their midst. Do we have video tapes and recordings of his speech on the run? Two and one-half hours? How long was he able to "appear" on the Aircraft Carrier?

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2003

Parson Jones opines -

"Are we now headed to the "all republicans are conservative envangelical christians and all democrates are liberals, anti God, and otherwise, scums banished from heaven."

Well, I hope not since my wife and the mother of our two children is a registered and politically active Democrat. I guess you might say we are the black version of Mary Matalin & James Carville (mixed marriage) the only difference is I don't look like the "facially- challenged" Mr. Carville :-) Now the frustations I encounter on this BB when the topic of foreign policy is discussed is the absence of balance in critiquing American interventionism. The current President is routinely lampooned by a majority of the discussants yet none of my critics/friends wish to engage in civil dialouge about the military mishaps of the former Commander-in-Chief, William Jefferson Clinton. A strong and logical case can be made that failure of the former Administration to take decisive steps to confront, target and eliminate the terrorist threat (e.g. East African Embassy Bombings, USS Cole explosion) raised the expectations for Bin Laden and Al- Queada. If a visitor from the faraway planet Alpha-Centurion was to "land" on this BB and read the stinging rebukes of President Bush our distinguished intergallactic guest would have no recourse but to conclude that Republicans are incapable of handling military and foreign affairs thus putting American interests at risk. However, a careful understanding of world history shows that American interventionism is clearly bi-partisan. Having worked as a defense consultant for many years and traveled to US military stations throughout Europe I understand the role and purpose of US Armed Forces. It is not a simple as some would imply. QED

-- Anonymous, December 02, 2003

Bill,

Perhaps you have forgotten what those of us who are registered Democrats have not. The first military initative of President William Jefferson Clinton was the bombing of the Presidential Palace in Iraq. This was done in response to an alleged assignation attempt on the life of his predecessor, the senior President George Bush by Sadaam Hussein.

In view of what we have presently accomplished by the current occupation and war in Iraq, I, among others, suspect it is less about terrorism and more about getting even and finishing the score.

Having thus stated my opinion let me hasten to add Brother Harold stated in another string, that we could stand to be more tolerant of others opinions and opposing views. As one led by the Holy Spirit and called by the name of Christ, I stand accused and convicted of it. So Harold,I repent--that is to change direction and go the opposite way. Although I am often passionate about what I believe and say I have nothing but the ultimate respect for each of you.

While debate and dialogue is healthy and it not wrong to disagree, we must keep in mind that what we say is our own opinion and subject to have others agree or disagree with us. The ultimate, Enemy is Satan and not the persons who post on this board. We are all children by adoption--son and daughters of the Most High God.

If I have offended any one of you it was not my intent. So, let me quickly offer my apology to you. Thus, let us agree to disagree peaceably by always showing to others our Love and respect.

"They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2003

Robert & All of my Bush Critic Friends -

As a frequent dissenter it would be hypocritical of me not to practice ideological tolerance. I have no problem with dissenting opinions. I just find it interesting that discussions about military interventions are so one-sided. Your reference to the Clinton Administration's "strike" against Saddam Hussein was not what I meant by a military mishap. I was speaking more about the fiascos in Mogadishu in the early 90s, return of Aristede to power in Haiti and of course the War against Milosevic. Just for the record, I supported all of the above "interventions" even though the architect for each was William Jefferson Clinton. QED

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2003

Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2003 12:44 a.m. EST

Bagram GI: Troops Waited While Hillary Chowed Down

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton forced U.S. troops stationed at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to wait for their Thanksgiving dinner last Thursday while she and her entourage arrived late, then cut in line and were served first.

A soldier who witnessed the scene tells NewsMax:

"Thanksgiving Dinner started at 3 p.m. that day, so the line was forming around 2:30 p.m. She didn't show up until around 3:30 p.m.

"Once she got there," our source maintains, "Clinton and her entourage bumped everyone in line, forcing them to wait almost an extra hour."

The brass at Bagram apparently had a hard time rounding up New Yorkers who wanted to have dinner with Clinton, D-N.Y. Only six GIs responded to an e-mail sent out last week that stated, "Looking for military members from New York and Rhode Island interested in meeting their Senator/Congressman."

People magazine was on hand to cover the event and wanted to interview the troops for reaction to Clinton's visit.

"But they were getting declined left and right," our source said. "People were actually telling the reporters, 'You don't want to print what I think about her and her visit.'"

After Clinton and her entourage departed, the only topics GIs wanted to talk about were "how great the food was and how fantastic they thought George Bush's visit to Iraq was."

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2003

RP it would be nice if you would document the source of your news stories.

But the truth of the matter is that both the Republicans and the Democrats use the troops as their pawns. For Bush and for Sen. Clinton and Laura Bush the troops are an expensive photo opportunity. These men and women are on year long deployments, they live in a dangerous situation, and the picture is not getting any better.

Well at least we can be thankful that they don't attend the funerals which would be a tasteless photo op. (A lot less expensive, but probably tasteless, but then again maybe attending the funeral of a young man killed for the freedom of Iraqis would help the country understand the reason we undertook this lone ranger mission in the first place.)

Nobody Democrats or Republicans are clean in this mess. Everybody thought it would be slam dunk, the intelligence was shoddy, and the result is just messy, anyway you look at it.

Get those poinsettias off the altar we need to pray!

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2003

Please pray for our young men and women fighting so we can have the luxury of defending the fact the president of the US used Thanksgiving to take atrip that wil hopefully gain him more vote in November. Let's not lose focus we are losing our youth daily fighting in a war they have little to no understanding as to WHY. Let's Pray folks.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2003

Linda, I think if you would just thnk about it you would reach adifferent conclusion about what our troops know about their mission. These are some of best and finest young men and women. Many are not so young also. The National Guard and Reserves are serving in Iraq as well as the Regular Troops. All are volunteers since we do not have a draft as we did in WWII and Korea. Being a retired military man, I can tell you that every military person is fully briefed on the mission and is most likely more aware of the politics involved than thier civilian mcounterparts. All commissioned officers and most non-commisioned officeds are college graduates including the three service acadiemes, West Point, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, and the Coast Guard. One has to be above average just to enter these schools. Education is streesed in the military as exemplified by the various GI Bills available to all military members. Trust me, they know why they are there.

BE bleswsed

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2003

This is a subject I feel very strongly about and have read alot about. I fully agree with and back the President on this war and on the war in Afganistan. Someone said something about Osama in Afganistan, well its not like Bush didnt do anything about that. As the President its natural that he gets critized for the things he does. But critisim seems to have gone beyond that in these days. Who here agrees with the people who call Bush a national terrorist? Isnt that a little backwards? Terrorists are the people who kill innocent people out of hatred and malice. President Bush liberated the country of Iraq from their leaders who murdered and tortured them. If anyone has heard the stories that came out after the people were free to actually hate Hussein, how can anyone possibly say that President Bush was the terrorizer? As to the reasons for going to war I think President Bush was fully right there also. As our leader he is responsible for this entire country. Thats an enormous responsibilty, one most of us cant imagine having. The security of us and our kids is up to him. And the government he was left with after Clinton was quite a mess. Clinton had let Osama go approximately 6 times although he knew that Osama was responsible for the first WTC attack and even had inteligiance that there was plans for flying planes into buildings. Clinton was a weak person who didnt like making decisions and let other people do it for him (with polls). President Bush saw a threat in Saddam, a murderer who may well be insane (tested his biological weapons on his own people). We know that he has funded terrorists and hates us. We know that he has or had weapons. It doesnt make sense to let the situation alone. Some people say we shouldnt attack unless we are first attacked. I disagree. The President's job is to keep this nation, this country safe and free. He could wait for another attack and let possibly thousands of us die before attacking Iraq. But I'm glad we have a President who is strong enough to face the critisim and do what he thinks is best. I dont believe it was an easy or quick decision he made but I believe its one he made with the best interest of the American people at heart. I admire him for his courage and persistence. I hope this isnt too long just wanted to make my point. I can register to vote this year since I will be turning 18 and President Bush is most definitly getting my vote.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Out of the mouth of babes.

Rebekah continue to answer the call to vote. We should all continue to pray for our leaders, whether or not we voted for that person. It is good to see that we are all not democrats. We as a people have for too long put our hope and trust in them. Long live our Federalized Republic where we are free to serve our God and support or criticize that Republic without fear of reprisal. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where such is not the case.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2003