Polly Ticks

[gothwalk]

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?

Comments

[natural20.livejournal.com]

I suspect you may well find that most of those troops were extremely enthusiastic about their Commander and Chief going to visit them. They may not be over the moon about being in Iraq, but they all volunteered to join the armed forces in some regard and are most likely very pro the whole theory of US power that George W espouses.

Ok, I am not and never have been a member of the US Armed Forces, but I'm not willing to be quite so cynical about their reaction to a visit by their president. That said, I don't know their minds either.

As to the part about it being for re-election, yes, most likely, but he isn't the only person who would get away with it and there isn't an opposition candidate who could get away with slagging a goodwill visit to the troops at Thanksgiving.

[silja.livejournal.com]

I am sure a big part of it was a publicity stunt.

But as Brian said, the troops are loyal. They have sworn an oath to carry out the orders of their Commander in Chief, and most are Republicans too. George Bush is good to the troop, especially compared to Clinton, and they appreciate that.

Leaders visiting

[cheerfulcynic.livejournal.com]

Note Tony Blair also visited his troops for a quick visit. There's lots of stuff you can pull Bush up about, but this, in a global context, isn't it.

Instead, ask some questions about why stuff is being done to help illegal immigants now?

[kmlahti.livejournal.com]

Mikko read somewhere this sentence; "USA keeps good care of their troops in Iraq. They even sent a large turkey to visit them on thanksgiving" :D

[mr-wombat.livejournal.com]

I dunnow how much they appreciate him cutting combat pay, pensions, benefits, compensation to families of those killed in combat and so on and so forth.

[mr-wombat.livejournal.com]

Oh and just look at Mary Harney's use of civil defence airplanes for opening off licenses for friends. all you have to do is keep quiet and the media lets it go after a week.

[socmot.livejournal.com]

I know two members of the US armed forces, one a little bit, and one fairly well.

They're both in the Marines. One is an F-18 pilot who flew in the 1991 conflict and hates Saddam. He's not impressed with Bush or his cabal at all, but he was in favour of going to Iraq because he despised Saddam for what his forces did to the Kuwaitis. Fair enough.

The other one I know is a Lieutenant, in command over a platoon of mostly young men...she's abut 25, her soldiers are about 18 to 22. We've lost touch now, but when I last spoke to her she was serving at home in the US, but was absolutely terrified of being sent to a war that she and her comrades had been lied into...she was having none of the weapons of mass destruction stuff. She is extremely anti-Bush and is loyal to the USMC and the soldiers serving under her command. What really really riled her was the fact that very few of the people in the White House have served in combat, or the military at all. If her unit was ordered to go, she'd go despite her personal opinions. It's not that she was scared of being killed, taken prisoner or sending her soldiers to those fates, it's that she might be killed or taken prisoner, or her solders might, for oil and power.

I sent her e-mail several times in the past few months, but never got a reply - I wonder was her unit sent overseas? I know she wasn't serving in Iraq during the war itself.

[harmfulguy.livejournal.com]

Ask yourself one question: If a politician you liked had done the same thing, would you be as upset about it? As much as I dislike many of this administration's actions, the Thanksgiving incident doesn't pass this test for me.

[gothwalk.livejournal.com]

Thing is, I don't like any politicians - not Irish, not British, not American. I'm fairly convinced that you have to have corruption as an aim to become one.

I tell a lie, the President of Finland is pretty decent. But the rest suck.