Bush's Handlers Send Him To Iraq
September 03, 2007 11:41 AM EDT
(Updated: September 03, 2007 11:43 AM EDT)
views: 45
|
comments: 48
I just learned President Bush is in Iraq. I wonder why his handlers chose this particular moment to have him fly into Iraq? Could this be an attempt by the power brokers to take the country’s current attention away from the perverts in Washington? Perhaps they are feeling a little worried that their strangle hold on the U.S. is slowly slipping away? They may feel that in order to reestablish their totalitarian authority over the country, they need to make sure their puppet George Bush, is seen as a strong leader instead of the idiot that he is. By making him go to Iraq, they establish this lie.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
But, yeah, the fact that it takes away space from other news that is less favorable is a bonus for them.
I'm fairly certain that Bush won't ever leave a military base and they will be on full alert. I think that this move is for the reasons some of you state, and also to pull attention away from the GAO report that was such a disaster. There is the teensiest chance that Bush wanted to deliver his "get off the pot" message personally to al-Maliki. It would be ironic as hell if the excrement hit the oscillating unit while he was there.
Why would Mr. Bush care about the mess in Congress? He has a much more important agenda in Iraq.........don't you think?
In addition, it's Labor Day weekend, Peter Pace is leaving soon, Mr. Bush hasn't been there in a while, at with the Congressional break he has some time to go over and rally the troops, literally. Stop reading nonsensical things into what the President is doing. He probably had this planned for a while.
Just like summer in Indiana, elizabeth!
Actually, he is "snubbing" Baghdad and posting in a desert place that is temporarily safer.
You wouldn't happen to be Conspiracy Theorist, would you? Because that's the kind of thinking those nutjobs employ.
Mr. Bush is there, and many of us think it was a great move on his part. The troops come first, the Leftist naysayers come last - if at all.
Our troops have everything they need in equipment and arms in Iraq. I just e-mailed my son and nephew and they have their choice of anything they want : arms, armored transportation, body armor, helmets, food, underwear..........you name it. Its been that way since my son was on his first tour. What you're talking about is a pure Left Wing fallacy.
Remember, Mr. Bush is the President. The media would follow him into the bathroom if they thought they could get an embarrassing photo, or a 'scoop' that no one else had. Iraq is just a normal event in the life of a President, these days.
And Juan, the GAO oversees Iraq spending as well as 15 armed services committees and sub-committees...........now chaired by Democrats. Do you think they'd leave the troops unarmed and inadequately equipped now, if such a discovery could be used to embarrass the Bush administration? I don't.
Are you trying to smear the President, Juan? 'Cuz that wouldn't be nice. lol
Yes, the documentary was either a fallacy, or from 3 years ago.
The dragon-skin story you saw was generated by the company that produces this body armor. They were just trying to embarrass the army into considering their armor over other companies' armor - after the testing was completed and another companies product was chosen. It was just sour grapes, that's all.
No one I know uses Dragon skin. No one I've ever heard of uses it either.
Juan, my son and nephew are in Baghdad, TODAY. That's about as first-hand as it gets.....lol.
The enhanced personnel carriers is another story from the past that keeps popping up. It too, hasn't been true in a few years. We have all the armor-plating, and body armor we want.
More than any of that stuff, what we need is a political solution in Iraq. And that requires a solid government that speaks for ALL of its people. We need a leader that can negotiate an oil revenue sharing plan that distributes Iraq's oil money to its people in a fair and equitable manner. Our military's Surge program is buying the government time to do that. But we need somebody who commands respect from ALL Iraqis, not just one sect.
The V-hull personnel carrier. Just certified. It would be nice to have, if the DoD decides to buy some.
It just got certified because it was only invented a few months ago. Are you aware what it takes to get a new vehicle into the DoD inventory?
That has nothing to do with Mr. Bush, however.
I was just commenting on your story that seemed to make Mr. Bush seem like an insincere puppet of 'higher powers'. I don't see that scenario happening.
As much as you want to believe the opposite, Mr. Bush is the President, and he calls the agenda. So when he does something great, like make an unexpected trip to Iraq, he's the one who probably thought of it. "Naive", Juan? That's when you believe that a Harvard MBA, 2-term war President can't call his own shots.....LOL!
I'm still chuckling about you Lefties trying to get in some parting shots after 7 years of his Presidency and 2 failed Left Wing attempts to unseat him. He beat your best guys, and you hate his guts. It's funny to watch you angrily protest his tenure.
Because this is so basic. The President sets the agenda - especially on something as basic as going to the troops on Labor Day. For you to suggest anything different is stupid and absurd..............unless you have some documented proof. Without this, all you've got is a fantasy smear piece. Prove it.
Take a look around you. Look at the wonders of God's creation. Give thanks to Him for being allowed to be here at all. Then go and say hello to someone and give them a smile. Do that and you'll be amazed at how much better you'll feel.
Dale, as far as my spiritual and mental well being is concerned, I have a very balanced life, filled with many friends, family and loved ones, more then sufficient to keep happy and strong.
This piece is a silly opinion, nothing more. Expect an argument when you try to smear the President with nothing but your opinion. Unless of course, you care to clarify with some nationally recognized news story that corroborates the title of this article. I don't think you can.
If the target of the coup/revolution is someone, like say, Saddam Hussein, who cares? He's gone and that's what matters. He didn't give his people a fair chance to choose something/someone different, so he paid the price when we removed him from power.
By contrast, Mr. Bush has faced voters twice, and won twice...........both by close margins. The voters were given choices, and he was chosen both times.