Today on Blogcritics
Home » George W. Bush Can’t Handle The Troops

George W. Bush Can’t Handle The Troops

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In a carefully crafted and disgraceful form of devious propaganda, the Bush administration has tried to create the false appearance that everything is going wonderfully in Iraq. Now the administration has even gone as far as to use the troops, whose lives are on the line, as a propaganda tool having no other purpose than to rally Republicans around his troubled presidency.

The president spoke via a video link. His event planners cherry-picked 10 Army soldiers and one Iraqi soldier. The soldiers were told what topics the president would ask about, and officials watched them rehearse their presentations before going live. The soldiers did not disappoint the dishonest Bush propaganda team. Each one praised the President, the war, and the progress in training Iraqi troops. Several spoke in a monotone, as if determined to remember and stay on the script.

It quickly became obvious that this was staged since Bush can’t face the troops, the American people, or the truth. What is he scared of? That one of the troops might ask him a real question?

Of course he is.

Alphaliberal.comThey might ask him why the National Guard has spent two years fighting in a foreign country when they have no business doing anything except guarding the American homeland. They might ask him to present an actual plan to win in Iraq that doesn’t consist completely of “stay the course” sound-bites. They might ask him how he justifies years of massive stop-loss orders on wary troops, many of whom just want to go home and resume their lives. They might ask him how he justifies sending the reserves to Iraq, thereby depriving America of the police, firefighters, and medics we needed to respond to Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters.

After the utter disgrace of this taxpayer-funded charade the deceit and cover-up began without delay. Before he realized the rehearsed session was caught on TV, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the soldiers were not told what they could or could not say. Another official, Allison Barber, later said the soldiers were told only about broad themes Bush wanted to discuss, not specific questions, however, before the session began, she was captured on video asking one of them, ”Who are we going to give that [question] to?”

Barber also explicitly cautioned that if something unscripted happened, to immediately give the microphone to one of the officers. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, issued a statement saying, “On behalf of these fine young men and women, we certainly regret any perception that they were told what to say. It is not the case.”

But subsequent footage of the event before it began proves that these officials are lying. Now military officers are upset that “military people would be coached as to how to talk to the President”, said a senior military official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s against everything that people in uniform stand for.”

Alphaliberal.comBut George Bush wouldn’t know that. When it was his time to “support the troops” in Vietnam he decided his time was better spent working on a political campaign. He certainly doesn’t believe strongly enough in the mission in Iraq to encourage his own family members, both of which are of fighting age, to join the war effort. So it is only natural that Bush would not want to face the same troops, whom he is requiring to make a sacrifice, that neither he nor his family is willing to make. And he certainly does not want to face the truth — that would require coming to terms with the fact that his decision to start a war of aggression against the disarmed country of Iraq is going to have negative consequences on the future of America, which can only be corrected with a “regime change” at home.

Alpha Liberal: Recommended Diaries

Balletshooz blogs at Alpha Liberal: Blogs, News, and Opinion.

Powered by

About Balletshooz

  • 1Potato

    I support Bush. I support the war. I guarantee you the current President who you depict as Alfred E. Newman has a higher I.Q. than you.

    (as he furiously types a response in his pajamas)

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    The problem isn’t his IQ. Several people of sub-normal intelligence have been successful presidents. Ronald Reagan is a good example. The problem with Bush is that he makes bad decisions because his judgment sucks ass. He doesn’t face up to reality very well. Reagan (though no hero of mine) was a self-made man who had lived an actual life and had apparently learned something from it. Bush is an arrested adolescent who never accomplished anything on his own and seems to learn nothing from his experiences.

  • htom

    Have you considered the possibility that President Bush and most of the troops in Iraq live in a different reality than you? I mean, like, not everything that happens in the world is part of a Karl Rove plot!

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    I don’t think the president lives in the same reality as the troops in Iraq. The whole point of this article was that perhaps he could if wasn’t so insulated by seven layers of handlers who make sure that never sees or hears anything unpleasant. And who the hell mentioned Karl Rove? Do you not read so well?

  • balletshooz

    Overall, its likely that Bush is smarter than he appears, but that isn’t the point. He is a seriously flawed person in that he has bad judgement coupled with an inability to adjust to make the best out of a bad decision he created. Then he uses God as an excuse to not change course when obviously that is what is needed.

    He is sort of like a human train wreck. You can see the train wreck coming a mile away but he refuses to put on the brakes.

  • 1Potato

    Ronald Reagan was not of sub-normal intelligence. That absolutely reeks of liberal indoctination at one of our great American universities.

    Reagan, an Irish American, was very intelligent. Biographers have stated that he was not a puppet, he was a man of ideas. It turns out that he wrote literally thousands of letters in his lifetime, beautiful, insightful, highly literate correspondce on all different levels. Maybe he wasn’t a geniuos IQ, but he certainly an intelligent man. In his later years he had altzheimers, and that clearly slowed his mind, but his natural IQ was not “sub-normal”.

    1P

  • 1Potato

    And Clinton had good judgment? Virtually no response to Al Queda’s attacks throughout his presidency. Pulling out of Somolia signally we are a paper tiger? Allowing the sale of nuclear missile technology to China so their long range missles can now hit us with accuracy. Pardoning billionaire felon Mark Rich after getting a big campaign donation?

    Bush is taking a stand and showing the world we have backbone. He is making less mistakes by acting than Clinton did by coasting through his presidency during peace time.

    1P

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    It turns out that he wrote literally thousands of letters in his lifetime, beautiful, insightful, highly literate correspondce on all different levels.

    While I have to agree that his letters show a deeply literate man, his presidency shows an incompetent man in over his head on the simplest matters of economic and foreign policy. While I don’t think he was an unintelligent person, he was ghastly unqualified to be president.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    As usual, BS, utter crap. Good job.

    Rumsfeld and others from the administration have been over there and held open-format meetings with troops and fielded questions which were not staged or pre-submitted and the troops have generally been as supportive and as positive as they were in this case.

    Plus, I think you got this a little backwards. The troops made their questions, they were submitted to Bush and he was the one who got to prepare answers for them. Not quite the same thing.

    Dave

  • Bennett

    Great post Balletshooz. I too watched the rehersal, and the denials that it was a staged event…

    Pants down? Wag the Dog? Yes to both questions, and it’s a sad chapter in American history.

    I have serious problems with a President that refuses to deal with real unscripted questions. It smacks of dishonesty, and is one of the reasons his approval rating is so low, and will go lower.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.b The Fifth Dentist

    Mr. Potatohead:
    Reagan was no genius. I didn’t learn about this in college, I remember his presidency quite well. I was in junior high when I first realized the guy was a moron. If you recall, he thought that catsup was vegetable. He also used to tell and re-tell the same stupid fucking story about when he was announcing for the cubs and the telegraph line went down and he had to pretend that the guy kept fouling the ball off: after a while it made you want to throw up. Plus Mr. Family values was divorced and all of his children hated him. Yup, let’s name another fucking airport after him. But, in fairness, he did at least lead us to a glorious victory over Grenada. That’s one more victory than we’re going to get out of our current buffoon.

  • MCH

    “Have you considered the possibility that President Bush and most of the troops in Iraq live in a different reality than you?”
    – htom

    So then most of troops in Iraq will be deserting before their tour is over, also?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    The petty spitefulness about Reagan says it all, dentist. You’re not interested in discussion, it’s all about the hate for you.

    Dave

  • http://www.communistvampires.com Thomas M. Sipos

    >> If you recall, he thought that catsup was vegetable. <<

    Catsup contains tomatoes.

    If you crush tomatoes, they’re still tomatoes — with the same vitamins and antioxidants, etc., — so why should catsup not qualify as a vegetable for nutritional purposes?

    The context of Reagan’s remark was the quantity of fruit & vegetable nutriants in school lunch programs. Some people complained that school lunches didn’t contain enough fruits & vegetables, and Reagan correctly suggested that catsup may qualify as a vegetable for nutritional purposes.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Stop being sensible, Thomas – no one wants to hear logic and reason. It intimidates them.

    Dave

  • Jewels

    Liberals are such angry people. Twisting and turning their ugly little liberal knives.

    This the same scenario all Presidents have used in similar situations. I will add, though being a Texan, I had so hoped George would act more Texan and strike an original tome and buck the past structures in these types of formats.

  • Chav

    All this backwards-and-forwardsing name-calling, cat-calling bragadocio simply illustrates how the Inet is no good for intelligent debate resulting in greater grasp. Rather, it resembles rival tribal camp-followers rooting for their respective teams with the rhetoric of the school-yard. Say how many ‘r’s in that and you’re a clever man…

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Dave, I think I’m capable of participating in a rational discussion. My experience has been that it serves little purpose, but in response to your request I’ll try to engage in one without any name calling.

    My serious point is that Bush is too insulated for his own good and is therefore never forced to confront anyone with a divergent opinion. The most egregious examples of this were his taxpayer funded campaign stops last year where his handlers ejected anyone wearing a Kerry button or any kind of democratic or left of center gear (no matter how innocuous.) The campaign advance men illegally directed the secret service to blatantly violate people’s first amendment rights. They did it because Bush doesn’t like to face dissent, they didn’t want the appearance of dissent on television, and they knew they could get away with it. Later, after each time this was exposed(it wasn’t a one time thing) they claimed that some peon had made a mistake and nobody was punished. Yet this happened every place he went. I believe when someone behaves like this they invite ridicule and I feel justified in responding to that invitation.

    I regret bringing Reagan into this as it side-tracked the discussion. I really don’t dislike Reagan. As a matter of fact my first post said that he was an effective president despite the fact that he wasn’t that smart. I don’t think that’s a controversial position and it’s not meant as name calling. I admit in fact that he was probably of at least average intelligence. My point was that intelligence is not the most important qualification anyway and is not Bush’s major deficiency. The more important qualities that Bush lacks are useful life-experience, good judgment and having a good grasp of objective reality so that when his plans don’t succeed he adjusts them. He thinks he’s a good manager because he’s often decisive but in my opinion it’s not that easy.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Jewels: “Liberals are such angry people. Twisting and turning their ugly little liberal knives.”

    I voted for John McCain in 2000. He’s actually far more conservative than Bush. Bush is a big government spender and deficit runner engaged in an interventionist foreign policy based on idealism. That’s the dictionary definition of a liberal as written by Pat Buchanan himself. Your remark makes me think that maybe you’re the liberal here. I’m in favor of free trade, balanced budgets and a foreign policy based on the balance of power theory and real-politik. In other words, I’m the conservative.

    Jewels: “This the same scenario all Presidents have used in similar situations.”

    Can you please detail with examples the other presidents to which you are referring because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Jewels:”I will add, though being a Texan, I had so hoped George would act more Texan and strike an original tome and buck the past structures in these types of formats.”

    He’s actually from New Haven, Connecticut. Maybe that’s why he was unable to stand up to his lackey’s like a Texan would.

    (Dave, am I still doing OK here? I don’t believe I’ve engaged in name-calling in my last two posts.)

  • Chav

    This isn’t ‘Dave'; I know not this ‘Dave’, of whom you speak.
    I am a humble, north-country schoolmaster, very much redolent of your own Ichabod Crane in the original story by W. Irving…
    The debate on this blog has been rendered down into little more than the clapperclaws of barrack-room lawyers world-wide.
    Or the absurd disputations of Schoolmen philosophers wrangling over the number of angels that can stand atop a pinhead…
    The big picture is absent from your debates: Republican or Democrat, donkey or Nelly, US foreign policy is paranoid, over-reaching, wasteful, unimaginative, expensive, dangerous, inept, chaotic, unsubtle, imperialist, and as self-aware as the child pulling on the thread of his pullover…
    From the viewpoint of the MIC it’s brilliant, but that as ever illustrates the greed, stupidity and hubris of such types. Personally, I’d prefer a stupid, cowardly idiot to be in command of world events to some figure who had the imagination to try to accomplish the Americanisation of Planet Earth.
    The USA is a state populated by provincials for the democratic most part, hence your leaders, parties and policies; hence the life-chances of half your population- health, housing, education, crime, poverty, welfare, and on and on and on being worse than some of the poorest and most reviled regimes on the planet. The humour engendered in the world by Venezuela and Cuba offering your ‘tired, huddled masses’ aid and comfort was exquisite.
    Ignorance seems to be your benchmark in all your affairs, domestic and foreign.
    The pyramid on your dollar bill, with its solid capstone sitting on high while the rest of the edifice is riven by design and very construction is a fitting symbol for your ‘society’. Motto? – ‘With Ignorance, Injustice and Poverty For Most’
    I care not for your china-shop blunderings, save only for the ‘pub-nutter’ consequences that will ensue.
    Stop trying to steer world affairs with the aid of such a fractured and myopic windshield.
    Arguing the relative merits of the two parties, Thieves and Brigands, backwards and forwards, Tweedledum versus Tweedledee, keeps us in the mess you create and advocate. Get real.’Else one day a real rain is gonna come and wash all the streets…
    CHAV.

  • The Fifth Dentist

    Chav, that “pox on both your houses” stuff doesn’t work, I’ve tried it.

  • Chav

    …Still don’t get it, Dave/dentist?
    The solution will not emerge by getting into a hole with such as these:
    Johnson vs Nixon, Kerry vs Bush?
    It’s the same diet, Kelloggs or Nabisco…
    The levees should’ve been reconstructed as far back as Reagan. The fact that Baby Bush (Bushbaby?) put one of his talent-free hobbledehoys in charge of FEMA is a minor historical detail…
    Whether or not Bush snr should have ‘finished the job in the ‘nineties, when it would’ve been easier’, as regards EYEraq is equally not worthy of speculation. The question should be ‘what is to be done?’, not ‘who would do it better?’
    This is the question your people, in their ignorance, provincialism, venality and Gadarine consumerism can not even address from their vantage-point of parsimony and ‘Devil take the hindmost’…
    You advocate- you, personally, advocate- Free Trade, the obverse of which is global domination and impoverishment. You propose in all your inner and authentic personal decency, a policy of creating an international economy founded on the Hobbesian nightmare of an economic war of each against all, believing this will be a boon to any but the most powerful and the most rapacious. You live in a country where the piracy of Enron has been only slightly mitigated from doing its worst; where the richest -and poorest- of your people in California cannot count on power or purity of water at all times as a result of Free Trade and Privatisation. And you advocate putting the defenceless peoples of the Third World at the hands of similar? How cruel, frivolous and vainglorious of you; following the latest half-baked, recycled idiocy, a policy that is historically only ever espoused by the strong; to be dropped as soon as the powerful become less strong…
    Cheap teeshirts and IT hardware tho’…
    So you all sit, on the Inet, arguing, like General Dreedle’s bomb-patterns, about the precisely preferred arrangements of the deckchairs on the upper decks of The Titanic, while those in Steerage breathe water while thir pockets are turned out to the strains of ‘The Halls of Montezuma’ and ‘The caissons go Rolling Along’…
    Time for some real, radical orthodonty…
    CHAV.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yes, Dentist, there’s at least some possibility of discussion when you actuall make explained points, even if they’re goofy.

    >>My serious point is that Bush is too insulated for his own good and is therefore never forced to confront anyone with a divergent opinion. < <

    This is a theory dragged out frequently by the left, with nothing but the scantiest evidence to support it. The fact that he likes to control Q&A sessions doesn't mean he's unaware of opposing viewpoints. More likely it means he knows about them and is deliberately avoiding exposing them. If he was truly oblivious then he'd wade right into an open forum on the assumption that everyone already agreed with him.

    >>The most egregious examples of this were his taxpayer funded campaign stops last year where his handlers ejected anyone wearing a Kerry button or any kind of democratic or left of center gear (no matter how innocuous.)< <

    Did that include butt-packs and birkenstocks?

    >> The campaign advance men illegally directed the secret service to blatantly violate people’s first amendment rights. < <

    I hear this story again and again, but when it's brought up it never comes with evidence, except for a couple of disruptive cranks who were weeded out because they were clearly there to heckle and cause trouble.

    You think a serious liberal couldn't get into those events dressed normally and ask a question? Well, the fact is that some of them did and asked the predictable questions, and Bush was prepared.

    However, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of the town hall meetings were held by the VP, not by Bush. Cheney appeared at dozens and dozens. Laura Bush appeared at quite a few. But I can only find 2 or 3 where Bush attended, and at each of those there's at least one controversial question. So if they were sanitizing the crowd they didn't do a very good job.

    >>They did it because Bush doesn’t like to face dissent, they didn’t want the appearance of dissent on television, and they knew they could get away with it. Later, after each time this was exposed(it wasn’t a one time thing) they claimed that some peon had made a mistake and nobody was punished. Yet this happened every place he went. I believe when someone behaves like this they invite ridicule and I feel justified in responding to that invitation.< <

    People were 'punished' for dissenting? What, did they take them around the corner and beat them?

    BTW, all of these claims arise from two incedents, both caused by local Republican operatives. One was in Fargo where about 40 local activists were put on a list not to be let into the event by the local folks running it. The other was an incedent at a town hall in Denver where a local party staffer who was mistakenly identified as a SS agent ejected three loud hecklers purely on his own authority. These two incidents have been played up by far left blogs far out of proportion to their significance. They certainly don't represent a systematic exclusion of dissent.

    I will say, however, that they do make an effort to customize the crowds in other ways, such as by having the Young Republicans pack the hall with members and by holding events in places the left doesn't often go - like at a Cabelas store.

    >>I regret bringing Reagan into this as it side-tracked the discussion. I really don’t dislike Reagan. As a matter of fact my first post said that he was an effective president despite the fact that he wasn’t that smart.< <

    I think it's presumptuous to try to judge his intelligence. The only evidence you have to go on is his life and career and it doesn't exhibit stupidity. He certainly wasn't stupid in any conventional sense. He could never have had the career he did without being above average in intelligence.

    >>I don’t think that’s a controversial position and it’s not meant as name calling.< <

    It's an unsupportable position. You also attacked his personal character pretty severely.

    >> I admit in fact that he was probably of at least average intelligence. My point was that intelligence is not the most important qualification anyway and is not Bush’s major deficiency. < <

    Right on target there.

    >>The more important qualities that Bush lacks are useful life-experience, good judgment and having a good grasp of objective reality so that when his plans don’t succeed he adjusts them. He thinks he’s a good manager because he’s often decisive but in my opinion it’s not that easy.<<

    These claims are easy to make from the opposite side of the political aisle, but you’ve really got very little to go on except for your assumptions. It seems like if he doesn’t agree with you then he’s being unrealistic. What you’re not taking into consideration is that his view of what’s realistic is based on different criteria than yours.

    dave

  • Chav

    So then, dressed in inexpensively produced if not merchandised designer cargo pants and teeshirts, tap-tap-tapping away at inexpensively produced if not merchandised designer IT ware, you all return to arguing about angels, deckchair arrangements, Dreedle’s bomb-patterns, and the troop displacements of Blucher and Nee.
    Displacement activity?
    Anything to stop your easychairs from blowing away…
    How very dare I?
    CHAV.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Goofy? That’s not a very adult or constructive thing to say Dave and I’m rather disappointed that you wrote that when you know I’m trying to refrain from name calling. But I’ll let it pass for now.

    1) You claim that there is the “scantiest” evidence that Bush is insulated from divergent opinions. I disagree. It’s actually quite well established. Read this article in the Washington Post about his February town hall meetings regarding social security reform. Notice how different he is in style from President Clinton who didn’t feel the need or desire to do any of this stuff.

    2) It is presumptuous of me to judge Ronald Reagan’s intelligence? Are you joking? You judge his intelligence yourself when you state that he had to be of above average intelligent based on his accomplishments. Isn’t it presumptuous of you to make that assessment or are you more qualified than me on the basis of your Ph.D? Perhaps we should exchange CVs and see who is more qualified to do the judging? In any event, read Chrisopher Hitchens’ article on the stupidity of Ronald Reagan.

  • dingo

    There are 4 things wrong with Iraq.

    1. The women are ugly.
    2. There are no alcoholic beverages.
    3. There are no whores.
    4. Because of 1 through 3, there is no morale.

    We need more morale gear to enlist. Maybe some gay blowjob queens!

  • WTF

    Oh and then…MJW was in Junior High school…

    That is so simple assed….

    Reagan beat the Soviets! Eastern European’s regard Reagan as a saint. You need to check your facts.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    St. Ronald of Poland

  • One Monkey’s Uncle

    “Reagan beat the Soviets!”

    He most assuredly did NOT beat anyone, least of all the Soviet Union. He happened to be on when the patient expired – it had little or nothing to do with his particularly theatrical but utterly ineffective bedside manner.

    “Eastern European’s regard Reagan as a saint. You need to check your facts.”

    Stating it doesn’t make it so. I work with dozens of contacts in about ten different Eastern European countries. Despite long nights of lively political talk, there and here, I’ve yet to hear any one characterize Reagan as a “saint,” although the commonly heard opposite state of human grace has been applied to him on many an occasion. On the basis of what evidence do you deduce this ridiculous nugget of wingnut wisdom?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Goofy? That’s not a very adult or constructive thing to say Dave and I’m rather disappointed that you wrote that when you know I’m trying to refrain from name calling. But I’ll let it pass for now.< <

    Calling your argument goofy isn't namecalling, or even suggesting that you, in general are a goofball.

    >>1) You claim that there is the “scantiest” evidence that Bush is insulated from divergent opinions. I disagree. It’s actually quite well established. Read this article in the Washington Post about his February town hall meetings regarding social security reform. Notice how different he is in style from President Clinton who didn’t feel the need or desire to do any of this stuff.< <

    That's the point, isn't it. It's a matter of style. His style is to be less public than Clinton. That doesn't mean he's isolated from the information, necessarily. The assumption that distant means isolated can be erroneous. He has a large staff, many of whom are quite in touch with the public. You think they don't talk to him?

    >>2) It is presumptuous of me to judge Ronald Reagan’s intelligence? Are you joking? You judge his intelligence yourself when you state that he had to be of above average intelligent based on his accomplishments. Isn’t it presumptuous of you to make that assessment or are you more qualified than me on the basis of your Ph.D? Perhaps we should exchange CVs and see who is more qualified to do the judging? < <

    Anyone who thinks that an advanced degree or a lengthy CV makes you qualified to judge someone's intelligence is engaging in wisfhful thinking. You yourself said in a later post that Reagan wasn't actually stupid, so now you're just arguing with me for the sake of argument.

    >>In any event, read Chrisopher Hitchens’ article on the stupidity of Ronald Reagan. <<

    That Hitchens article is truly a wretched exercise in egotistical self-indulgence, something Hitchens is a master of. Reagan was provincial, naive and idealistic. He wasn’t an intellectual. That doesn’t make the man stupid. Hitchens is an intellectual, but sometimes he leaves you wondering if he has even a lick of common sense, and that’s a form of intelligence too. Lord save us from intellectual morons.

    Dave

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    I just got back today from my seventh trip to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany to visit our wounded.
    As a Marine spouse grateful for the safe return of my husband, I feel duty bound to make sure they know we are here and thinking of them — and to give them some of the world’s best chocolate.
    My husband and I visited eleven Marines and four Army soldiers that were attached to Marine units when they were wounded. Two of the Marines had arrived just before we got there this morning, three were in surgery, and three are in ICU.

    Bush has visited his troops here in Germany who were not deployed at the time of his visit. He did not go to nor has he been to Landstuhl to see the wounded. I know he’s been to Iraq and Bethesda Medical Center, that’s nice. AND those at Landstuhl deserve no less attention from their CIC.
    It doesn’t matter what the reason is for this neglect, it is a shameful omission as a father, a president, and a man.

  • Justin Berry

    This is not an opinion or second hand fact. I personally declined to meet with President Clinton While I was a Marine stationed in Hawaii because I was told what I could and could not ask.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Diana, the president has visited the wounded in other locations. Send him a letter suggesting that those at Landstuhl are being neglected and I bet he’ll go there on his next trip to Europe.

    Dave

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    Dave, just in case something was misunderstood, the wounded at Landstuhl are not being neglected. The wounded who were there when the president was in country deserved his atttention and didn’t get it. This is the neglect. The president sent his wife to Landstuhl instead.

    As I mentioned, I am aware of his visits to Iraq and Bethesda. Iraq is the hotspot and Bethesda is just up the road from the white house in the same country where the president lives. He didn’t visit any field hospitals in Iraq and the wounded he did visit with were stumbled upon in the course of another tour.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Ah, well sending the president to Iraq again to visit the wounded might be a bit unrealistic. But those wounded do eventually make it back here, so there’s no reason why he shouldn’t meet with them at that point. Bush can never go wrong meeting with wounded soldiers, even if some of them are pissed off. Most of them will still support him and he’ll look good either way.

    Dave

  • Chav

    I joined this debate by indicating how jejune I found the discussion. I suggested it was informed by myopic provincialism, among many other stumbling blocks…
    Apart from some deference to my observations on the sophomore quality of tit-for-tat point-scoring, I have had no influence on the permeability of rational reflection in your little political sudoku. I find that I leave you as I found you at comment 17. Such will it remain until you recognise your role, your ignorance and the blinkered danger you present to the rest of this world.
    Have a nice day.
    Sic semper tyrannus!
    CHAV

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    To Justin Berry:
    Justin, out of curiosity, when you were in Hawaii, what topics did they tell you you could ask Clinton about and which ones were off limits? Also, who was it exactly that was giving you the rules? Also when was this?