Bush sets record-longest vacation in recent history

[ThAnswr]

You're on a roll today. Maybe you forgot his minor fiasco... the Bay of Pigs...

Of which JFK took full, complete, and very public responsiblity. Then he fired the top executives at the CIA.

If you're old enough to remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco, you're old enough to remember that.

"Don't recall JFK pretending to be a cowboy."

Take it up with Brenda who asked the question.

"You can't make this stuff up."

No joke.

I gotta stop reading... you are cracking me up today!!

Have a nice day.

 

[bsnyder]

Hey, you guys are comparing Iraq to Viet Nam.

Plus,



has been tossed about a few times regarding Bush and the war in Iraq. What Bet was probably implying is that in spite of that during WWII, we still won. WWII is over. Even after it was over, it wasn't really over for a long time. Iraq isn't over yet either.

Yes, I am implying that, and more.

ThAnswr, do you think we should pull out all our troops? Every last one? Starting today? I know exactly where you stand on President Bush, but I don't know where you stand on that issue, and it's a crucial one.

 

[ThAnswr]

I never said their was NO coverage. But it was very different than what we have in the modern era.

Specifically, leaving out all the modern technology such as email and digital cameras, how is it different?

Btw, Matthew Brady had some of the most sophisticated technology available at the time. As did the war correspondents in WWII.

So, please, Bet, some specifics as to how "this is different".

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Of which JFK took full, complete, and very public responsiblity. Then he fired the top executives at the CIA.

If you're old enough to remember the Bay of Pigs fiasco, you're old enough to remember that.

Take it up with Brenda who asked the question.

No joke.

Have a nice day.

Nice attempt at backpedaling... hope you don't fall off your bike.

It is a neverending source of amusement to hear people talk about Pres. Bush acting like a "cowboy", when every President has had their share of "cowboy" moments. It's what makes these individuals capable of being President in the first place. What is incredibly funny is that this trait is admired or ridiculed depending on one's politics.

 

[ThAnswr]

Yes, I am implying that, and more.

ThAnswr, do you think we should pull out all our troops? Every last one? Starting today? I know exactly where you stand on President Bush, but I don't know where you stand on that issue, and it's a crucial one.

Since you asked so kindly, here's exactly what I would do.

1) I'd tell the Iraqis the US will be there one more year and they have 1 year to get their act together and start fighting for themselves. The Iraqis have been given a gift few in Middle East ever get and that is to determine their own destiny. They're either going to fight for their freedom or they're going to lose it.

2) I'd airlift Iraqi security and military here for training. We can use the basic training we use on our own military.

3) I'd insure the rights of women in Iraq via the Constitution. If the women of Iraq lose their rights and go back 50 years, the repercussions of just what freedom meant will reverberate through the next generation.

That's just for starters.

 

[ThAnswr]

Nice attempt at backpedaling... hope you don't fall off your bike.

It is a neverending source of amusement to hear people talk about Pres. Bush acting like a "cowboy", when every President has had their share of "cowboy" moments. It's what makes these individuals capable of being President in the first place. What is incredibly funny is that this trait is admired or ridiculed depending on one's politics.

Oh good grief........................

And it's a neverending source of amusement that you righties always grab at a dead Democrat to prove this live Republican in the WH (or Crawford) is more than the sack of crap he really is.

 

[Charade]

Since the title of this tread says "in recent history", does that imply there have been past Presidents that took more vacation time during their term?

 

[bsnyder]

Specifically, leaving out all the modern technology such as email and digital cameras, how is it different?

Btw, Matthew Brady had some of the most sophisticated technology available at the time. As did the war correspondents in WWII.

So, please, Bet, some specifics as to how "this is different".

The 24/7 news cycle is just one biggie, with retired generals as talking heads doing their armchair quarterbacking - while the battle's still going on.

Do you really, honestly, not see a difference? If you don't that's fine. But I'm not going to waste my time if you're being purposefully obtuse.

 

[BuckNaked]

"Sitting in warm water with his cookie".........Brenda, this is an intervention. Step away from the keyboard.

FYI, FDR had polio and was fighting WWII against the German war machine and the Japanese Imperial Army/Navy. How you can possibly compare that with a healthy man (Bush) who can't even seem to manage a regional conflict (Iraq) in a country that doesn't have a military.

And what is this "cookie"? If you're referring to the woman he was with at Warm Springs, she was his cousin, Daisy Suckley , who was a confidante and close friend from childhood.

I wasn't comparing President Bush and FDR's health, I was using the example of FDR being on vacation during WWII as an example of the absurdity auntpolly's implication that Presidents shouldn't take vacations during war time.

As for the cookie, I was referring to Lucy Rutherford, FDR's long time mistress.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Since you asked so kindly, here's exactly what I would do.

1) I'd tell the Iraqis the US will be there one more year and they have 1 year to get their act together and start fighting for themselves. The Iraqis have been given a gift few in Middle East ever get and that is to determine their own destiny. They're either going to fight for their freedom or they're going to lose it.

I don't think this would be long enough. These people have never experienced freedom before and have no concept what it involves. While they may have wanted to throw off the yoke of Saddam's oppressive regime, I doubt they had any idea what self-government involves. Also given that they are surrounded by countries that desire nothing more than to see freedom and democracy fail in Iraq, then 1 year is simply not enough time.

Before you ask... I have no idea what timeline we should use. It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan. Iraq is a totally different "ballgame", so the old rules just don't apply there.

2) I'd airlift Iraqi security and military here for training. We can use the basic training we use on our own military.

Good idea if it were feasible.

3) I'd insure the rights of women in Iraq via the Constitution. If the women of Iraq lose their rights and go back 50 years, the repercussions of just what freedom meant will reverberate through the next generation.

Alas, it should not be our responsibility to dictate what Iraq's Constitution should and should not do. They need time to work out their Constitution; I believe the administration's arbitrary deadline to finish this work is more of a hamper than a help. I agree that all people in Iraq should share equally in freedom, but that should be something the Iraqis decide and support... it should not be forced on them.

 

[bsnyder]

Since you asked so kindly, here's exactly what I would do.

1) I'd tell the Iraqis the US will be there one more year and they have 1 year to get their act together and start fighting for themselves. The Iraqis have been given a gift few in Middle East ever get and that is to determine their own destiny. They're either going to fight for their freedom or they're going to lose it.

2) I'd airlift Iraqi security and military here for training. We can use the basic training we use on our own military.

3) I'd insure the rights of women in Iraq via the Constitution. If the women of Iraq lose their rights and go back 50 years, the repercussions of just what freedom meant will reverberate through the next generation.

That's just for starters.

And so the terrorists know they have to just stick it out for a year and then make sure all hell breaks loose. Then what do we do? How does a timetable do anything but strengthen their hand?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Oh good grief........................

And it's a neverending source of amusement that you righties always grab at a dead Democrat to prove this live Republican in the WH (or Crawford) is more than the sack of crap he really is.

It's a neverending source of amazement that you lefties always elevate a dead Democrat past all the saints and God to prove that a dead Democrat President is better than a living Republican one.

But do tell me again how you don't "do" partisan politics...

 

[ThAnswr]

The 24/7 news cycle is just one biggie, with retired generals as talking heads doing their armchair quarterbacking - while the battle's still going on.

Do you really, honestly, not see a difference? If you don't that's fine. But I'm not going to waste my time if you're being purposefully obtuse.

No specifics, just the usual.....24/7, talking heads, yada, yada, yada.

And I've wasted enough time on someone who compares apples with oranges and comes up with bananas.

 

[bsnyder]

No specifics, just the usual.....24/7, talking heads, yada, yada, yada.

And I've wasted enough time on someone who compares apples with oranges and comes up with bananas.

The 24/7 news cycle IS a very specific concept. And very different from what we had during WWII.

 

[BuckNaked]

There's no doubt that at the time, previous wars were covered with the latest technology available at the time. But let's be serious, there is no comparison to the live, up to the minute coverage that is going on now in Iraq.

I think that's what bsnyder was alluding to, i.e., if Normandy had been covered the way Iraq is being covered, people would have been horrified.

If you've seen "Saving Private Ryan", think for a minute about the reaction of Americans had those scenes been played out live, on TV, at the minute they were happening. You don't think Americans' jaws would have dropped? But they weren't, because the technology wasn't available to make it happen.

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the coverage of WWII or the Civil War was the same as the coverage of the war in Iraq.

 

[Charade]

Alas, it should not be our responsibility to dictate what Iraq's Constitution should and should not do. They need time to work out their Constitution; I believe the administration's arbitrary deadline to finish this work is more of a hamper than a help. I agree that all people in Iraq should share equally in freedom, but that should be something the Iraqis decide and support... it should not be forced on them.

The left doesn't like it when the US imposes our type of Democracy on others but they would like to be sure that womens rights are not squashed in the new Constitution of Iraq.

Interesting...

And where is Hillary in all this? Hasn't she traveled to world in support of womens rights?

 

[bsnyder]

There's no doubt that at the time, previous wars were covered with the latest technology available at the time. But let's be serious, there is no comparison to the live, up to the minute coverage that is going on now in Iraq.

I think that's what bsnyder was alluding to, i.e., if Normandy had been covered the way Iraq is being covered, people would have been horrified.

If you've seen "Saving Private Ryan", think for a minute about the reaction of Americans had those scenes been played out live, on TV, at the minute they were happening. You don't think Americans' jaws would have dropped? But they weren't, because the technology wasn't available to make it happen.

I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the coverage of WWII or the Civil War was the same as the coverage of the war in Iraq.

Not only that. Because of the differences in coverage, as well as some cultural differences, the mistakes and blunders weren't as thoroughly known and disected until after the crucial battles were won. What I'm saying is if we'd had modern coverage of a horrific event like Normandy, with it's accompanying human and institutional error, we very well may not have even stayed the course long enough to win the battle.

 

[toto2]

I agree that all people in Iraq should share equally in freedom, but that should be something the Iraqis decide and support... it should not be forced on them.

But the last reason given for this war was to bring freedom !


And it would be allright that half the population would enjoy less freedom than before " liberation from tyranny" ?


If you are going to use words like freedom and try to impose your way of life by going to war , you've got to impose those things to the people you " helped" gain that " freedom ".


"Freedom" was forced on them !

 

[Professor Mouse]

Cindy Sheehan is getting some reinforcements Military Families to Join Cindy Sheehan in Crawford; Gold Star and Military Families from Across Country on Their Way to Texas

CRAWFORD, Texas, Aug. 9 /U.S. Newswire/ -- More members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) and Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) are traveling to Texas to join the protest outside of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing for the month of August

Starting today, Gold Star families from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arkansas and other states whose loved ones have died as a result of the war in Iraq will be joining one of their members, Cindy Sheehan, at the protest. Ms. Sheehan, whose son Army Specialist Casey Sheehan was killed in Sadr City, Iraq on April 4, 2004, has been in Crawford since August 5th, demanding a meeting with the President. These families will be joined by military families with loved ones currently serving in Iraq or about to deploy or redeploy to Iraq. All of these families are coming to Crawford, Texas to share their stories about the personal costs of the war in Iraq and add their voices to the call for a meeting with President Bush.

On August 3, 2005 President Bush, speaking about the dreadful loss of life in Iraq in early August, said "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission... The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause." Gold Star and military families coming to Crawford know that the cause was not noble; that their loved ones died, or are currently in harm's way, serving in a war based on lies.

In the first 8 days of August, 36 service members died in Iraq; countless Iraq children, women and men are dying each day. All of the families traveling to Crawford will carry the message to the vacationing President: Honor our fallen and honor our loved ones' service by ending the occupation, bringing the troops home now and taking care of them when they get here.

President Bush has consistently tried to hide, and to hide from, the cost of the war in Iraq. This August, these costs are being brought right to his doorstep.

Members of Gold Star Families for Peace and Military Families Speak Out who are traveling to Crawford will be available for interview beginning on Tuesday afternoon August 9th.

For More Information:

-- Military Families Speak Out: http://www.mfso.org

-- Gold Star Families for Peace: http://www.gsfp.org

There will soon a decent number of parents of victims of Bush's war in Crawford.

 

[sodaseller]

The 24/7 news cycle is just one biggie, with retired generals as talking heads doing their armchair quarterbacking - while the battle's still going on.

Do you really, honestly, not see a difference? If you don't that's fine. But I'm not going to waste my time if you're being purposefully obtuse.

Not sure that you are saying this, but there is a common misperception that prior to Vietnam and the modern media era, there was near uniform public support for all US war efforts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. At the risk of gross oversimplification, any war of choice that incurred any but the most minimal of casualties has raised the ire of a significant portion of the electorate, regardless of the sophistication of the media delivering the casualty reports. Some attribute that to the persistent isolationist strain that is part of American exceptionalism Not sure if that is correct, but sure that history is replete with war protests, the exception really being WWII - that's the anomaly, largely because it was viewed as an existential threat, IMO, which it was. That said, even the Civil War, the paradigmatic existential threat, saw plenty of objection to the bloodshed when the cause against the South appeared to be going nowhere. Sherman's message delivering Atlanta in early October 64 (I think) is attributed with ensuring Lincoln's reelection, failing which he would have been turned out by McClellan seeking peace. Look at the First lines of the Second Inaugural if you doubt:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

There is persistent meme in the Conintern to see Bush as some unique victim of malevolence from his opponents, which is absurd from even a recent historical perspective, but nothing is more central to the modern right wing ethos that the victimization shtick.


And not since the Spanish American War has a "war" been sold to the public under such dubious circumstances, with a President taking the lead in the sales process. Before the War, when positive results were expected, his bold leadership was attributed for seeing the threat that others did not. Now that we know that his vision is flawed, both as to the threat and to the cost to address it, the criticism has justly come. The Weekly Standard crowed after the 2002 midterms that Bush had gained the Senate by making the election a referendum on his choice to go into Iraq. When it served his political purposes, the President was happy to take responsibility and praise. When it doesn't, suddenly it's bad manners to be anything but an enthusiastic supporter. That said, I agree that we are in it now and must finish it unless we deem that impossible, which it may be given prior misjudgments