Big Kahunas

On 29 Nov 2003 02:01:10 GMT
ackatyu (Wdtabor) wrote:


No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to
the
world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
political stunt. Apparently it's working.


Announcing the visit would have almost certainly drawn an attack either by
terrorists or by mortars or rockets, more likely killing others there to
celebrate than Bush himself. Endangering others to show off would not have been
brave, it would have been reckless and stupid.


Going there at all put those soldiers in danger, it was mostly a stunt.
And a vivd reminder (Bush stayed for 2-3 hrs.) how dangerous a place it
really is now.


My point was really that he doesn't have bog cojones.


R. Hubbell





--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article q4Nxb.7819$ZE1.4509@fed1read04,
"R. Hubbell" wrote:
No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to
the
world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
political stunt. Apparently it's working.


I seriously doubt that. Flying into Baghdad was a fairly large risk
even given the security precautions. If all Bush was after was
political points, he could have scored those easily without ever leaving
Washington, D.C.



JKG

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Say what you will about GW

Thanks, I guess I will.

The whole thing was just Bush II playing boy-soldier again. And, I'm
sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
over. And how many have been killed after he invited the Iraqi
radicals to "bring 'em on".

In article ,
Bob Fry wrote:

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Say what you will about GW

Thanks, I guess I will.

The whole thing was just Bush II playing boy-soldier again. And, I'm
sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
over. And how many have been killed after he invited the Iraqi
radicals to "bring 'em on".


Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if Bush
weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there, as they have
fellow Arabs to aid them.

IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there,
as they have fellow Arabs to aid them.

IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations
wonderland for terrorists, awash with weapons for their use. We are
immeasurably less secure than we were before Bush and his full-moon
gazing, true-believer, neocon advisors launched this stupid war.

And the Thanksgiving trip?...a shrewd electioneering stunt. If Bush is
master of anything, it is the photo opp.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan

I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

If your not jewish and don't know the word, just look it up.

Big John

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:38:09 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there,
as they have fellow Arabs to aid them.

IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations
wonderland for terrorists, awash with weapons for their use. We are
immeasurably less secure than we were before Bush and his full-moon
gazing, true-believer, neocon advisors launched this stupid war.

And the Thanksgiving trip?...a shrewd electioneering stunt. If Bush is
master of anything, it is the photo opp.

In article , Big John
wrote:

I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

never mind the stuff his entourage "liberated" from the Navy
ships they used during the visit.

--
Bob Noel

"Big John" wrote:
I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

Oh, for sure Clinton was a master of the photo opp, too.

Both of those draft dodgers, Bush and Clinton, have an awful lot of
chutzpah to strike military poses.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:

But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
was mutual.

This is an oft repeated fallacy. The record indicates otherwise, with solid
evidence of cooperation and non-aggression agreements over the last 13 years.

See the Weekly Standard article "Case Closed" for details.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Dan Luke" wrote in
:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there, as
they have fellow Arabs to aid them.

IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations

So his televised announcement to financially reward the families of suicide
bombers was a message of hatred toward terrorists, then?