![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Right. Let's see how much writing I can jam into 20 minutes before I go back to work. What I want to write about, having had a good long think about it, is Bush's visit to Iraq on Thanksgiving. What I want to question is what it was for, and who paid for it. The official line seems to be that it was intended to raise the morale of the troops in Iraq. Now, maybe you can imagine the guys saying "It sure was nice of the President to come all the way out here to say hi to us." I, however, can't. I can imagine them saying "Goddamn SOB gets to fly home again after a couple of hours here..." Imagine the reaction if Churchill had, in the middle of WWII, flown in to spend a few hours with the troops at Christmas, and then fly home again.
However, even if that was the reasoning, then why did he take five reporters and five photographers with him? Reporters are not noted for raising the morale of troops. I think it's fairly plain that the whole trip - like the aircraft carrier landing thing - was nothing but a photo shoot, with George as the model showing off this fine turkey.
Now, who does a photo shoot benefit? The American people? Not really. The troops? I don't think so. Bush, and his re-election possibilities? Yah.
And who paid for it? Was it Bush? I doubt it. Was it the Republican party? Again, I doubt it. Was it from taxpayer's money? Without checking, I'd bet so. So, the money of taxpayers - not party members, or corporate contributions, or what-have-you, but money intended to run the country - is being used to improve Bush's chances of getting re-elected. And this is being done blatantly and in plain view.
I don't understand this - no other elected Head of State in the western world could get away with such straightforward use of national funds for his own political benefit. Why isn't Bush asked to pay for this from his own pocket, or from the copious funds of the Republican party?
However, even if that was the reasoning, then why did he take five reporters and five photographers with him? Reporters are not noted for raising the morale of troops. I think it's fairly plain that the whole trip - like the aircraft carrier landing thing - was nothing but a photo shoot, with George as the model showing off this fine turkey.
Now, who does a photo shoot benefit? The American people? Not really. The troops? I don't think so. Bush, and his re-election possibilities? Yah.
And who paid for it? Was it Bush? I doubt it. Was it the Republican party? Again, I doubt it. Was it from taxpayer's money? Without checking, I'd bet so. So, the money of taxpayers - not party members, or corporate contributions, or what-have-you, but money intended to run the country - is being used to improve Bush's chances of getting re-elected. And this is being done blatantly and in plain view.
I don't understand this - no other elected Head of State in the western world could get away with such straightforward use of national funds for his own political benefit. Why isn't Bush asked to pay for this from his own pocket, or from the copious funds of the Republican party?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject